grove_ack

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the clearing of the needs-reply flag, the grove_write permission requirement, and the sender identity/grove_relay behavior. This goes beyond annotation redundancy and gives concrete behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose, effect, permission, then a structured Args list. It is efficient and free of filler, though the Args block could be tighter.

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 write operation that clears a flag, the description covers purpose, permissions, and parameter semantics. Missing details like error handling or response format are minor given no output schema and the relative simplicity of the 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains channel_name, correlation_id, original_id, and sender, including default behavior and relay permission. The only unmentioned parameter is app_id, which is optional with a default and arguably not critical for ack operations.

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?

States a specific verb (Acknowledge) and resource (received message, original), and explicitly says it clears the needs-reply flag. This distinguishes it from siblings like grove_reply or grove_flag without needing to open their schemas.

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 use for acking messages but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like grove_reply, grove_flag, or grove_watch. There's no 'when not to use' or explicit alternative routing, though the purpose is clear enough for most agents.

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