ack_messages

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the key forward-only trait, that lower values are ignored, and the replay safety property: a replayed ack cannot re-deliver processed messages. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention response shape or potential errors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important forward-only behavior is stated immediately after. Every sentence contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter ack tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and edge-case semantics. It omits return value details, but the core usage and replay behavior are sufficiently described for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%; binding_token is described in the schema, but ack_seq is not. The description adds meaning to ack_seq by framing it as the cursor position, and the forward-only note clarifies its semantics. It does not elaborate on binding_token beyond the schema, so the description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Advance the calling agent's cursor to ack_seq.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling ack tools like ack_thread and ack_delivery, which target different resources. The forward-only note reinforces its unique role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the core operation and the forward-only constraint, implying it should be used after messages are processed. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus poll_messages or other ack-related siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.