Acknowledge a directive to mark it as handled and stop it from being returned to your pending work queue.
Acknowledge a directive so it stops being returned to this worker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| cwd | No | Directory identifying the project and the tree. Defaults to this session's working directory, which in a git worktree is that worktree. | |
| worker | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses the main effect (the directive will no longer be returned to this worker) but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or whether the directive is deleted or globally acknowledged.
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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action and the outcome efficiently.
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?
The tool is relatively simple, but the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions means the description carries a heavier burden. It covers the core purpose but leaves parameter semantics and behavioral details to inference.
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 schema has 33% description coverage, with only cwd described. The phrase 'this worker' gives some meaning to the worker parameter and 'acknowledge a directive' implies id refers to the directive, but id and worker remain largely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 ('Acknowledge') and resource ('a directive') and adds a clear outcome ('so it stops being returned to this worker'). It is distinct from sibling tools like directive_issue and directive_poll, which serve different purposes.
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 context is clear: the tool is used when a worker wants to stop a directive from being returned. Although it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the condition is easy to infer from the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.