ack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: acknowledgment permanently deletes messages and is irreversible outside TTL expiry. It does not cover edge cases like idempotency or unknown IDs, but the main destructive side effect is clearly stated.

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 sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the action and effect before adding the permanence note. 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 one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, invocation, and effect. Missing details like return value or error behavior are minor given the tool's simplicity, though the absence of any output schema leaves some ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter. It explicitly says 'Pass a list of message IDs to acknowledge', which directly explains the single message_ids parameter. It does not add constraints or examples beyond what the parameter name and schema already convey.

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 a specific action ('Acknowledge and delete messages') and resource ('messages by their IDs'), and adds the unique capability of permanent removal. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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 implies the use case: when you want to permanently remove messages, noting TTL expiry as the only alternative. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or how it compares with dispatch, peek, or who, so usage guidance is suggestive rather than prescriptive.

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