acknowledge_task_events

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

The description discloses the write operation via the 'WRITE/LOCAL' prefix and explains error handling for unknown IDs ('reported without failing known acknowledgements'). With no annotations provided, this adds meaningful behavioral context, though idempotency and other side effects are not mentioned.

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 a single sentence plus a tag, conveying essential information without waste. It is front-loaded with the operation type and scope ('WRITE/LOCAL'). Every part is informative.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the action, effect, and error handling. However, it lacks details on idempotency, return value, and typical usage scenario, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds that eventIds are 'durable task-event ids' and that acknowledgment removes them from the pending spool, but does not elaborate on format, origin, or validation rules beyond the schema's type and constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('acknowledges'), the resource ('durable task-event ids'), and the effect ('removes them from the pending spool'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_pending_task_events and poll_task_events by focusing on acknowledgment and removal.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow (e.g., after processing events), or exclusion criteria. The context is entirely implied.

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