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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantically important behavioral fact that this is a non-resolving, state-advancing action that attaches a note to the incident. It does not mention permission requirements or whether the state change is reversible, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences: the primary action first, the usage trigger second, and the non-resolution caveat as a closing note. Every phrase carries information an agent needs.

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 low-risk three-parameter mutation with an output schema absent and full schema coverage, the definition supplies the essential behavioral facts: what state change occurs, what gets attached, and what does not happen. Missing only secondary detail such as required permissions or the resulting incident status.

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 100%, so both id and note are already documented in the schema, including examples. The description adds only that the note is a diagnostic/investigation artifact. The schema does not surface the id/incident_id alias relationship in the description, but the alias is documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: marks an open incident as acknowledged and attaches an AI diagnostic note. The note about not resolving the incident explicitly separates it from the sibling resolve_incident.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('when you have reviewed an active incident and want to let the team know it is being investigated'), and the closing note distinguishes it from resolution. It does not name resolve_incident as an alternative, but the boundary is implied clearly enough to route correctly.

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