nape_ack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by explaining the side effect: acknowledged honks are removed from nape_honks results but remain in the audit log. This gives sufficient transparency for a non-destructive action.

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 that front-load purpose and effect, followed by a note guideline. Every sentence is valuable; no redundancy or fluff.

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 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs, side effects, and note expectations. It lacks explicit return value info, but that is acceptable for an acknowledgement tool.

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 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'note' parameter ('explain how the concern was addressed or why it was a false positive') beyond the schema's 'How the concern was addressed,' and clarifies that 'honk_id' comes from 'nape_honks output.' This extra guidance raises the score.

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 ('Acknowledge a Nape honk'), the resource ('Nape honk by its honk_id'), and the effect (removed from nape_honks results). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like nape_honks or nape_observe.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a honk_id to acknowledge) and prescribes including a note. While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, the context from sibling names and the specific action make the usage clear enough.

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