comms_acknowledge

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses that the tool appends to a JSONL file, never mutates the original message, and records integration. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Every word contributes meaning: defines the action, distinguishes from read_by, clarifies integration, specifies file append, confirms non-mutation.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, its effect (append), and side effects (none on original message). It is fully self-contained for an agent to understand invocation.

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?

All 4 parameters are already described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantics to the parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Clearly states the tool records integration of a message, distinguishes it from read_by, and defines integration (not a glance). The verb 'acknowledge' is specific and the resource ('comms/acks.jsonl') is mentioned.

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?

Provides context on when to use (when actually integrated) versus when not (glancing), but does not explicitly name sibling tools or directly contrast with other ack-related tools like comms_get_acks.

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