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

Goes well beyond the annotations by naming the permitted roles, the fact that the actor identity is captured, and that the action is recorded in the audit log — meaningful context for a mutation tool. It does not describe what a second acknowledgment does, though idempotentHint covers that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the action, the actor, the optional note, and the audit consequence with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, permissions, side effect (audit log) and the optional note. Only the relationship to dismiss/resolve remains unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only the illustrative 'planned fix' use of the note, which the schema also mentions almost verbatim, so baseline 3 is right.

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 and resource ('Mark an open advisory as acknowledged') and pins the acting identity. It does not name the closest siblings (dismiss_advisory, resolve_advisory), so an agent must infer that acknowledgment is a distinct, milder state transition.

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 word 'open' implies a precondition (only unacknowledged/advisory-state items), which is useful. But there is no explicit guidance on when to acknowledge versus dismiss or resolve, despite those tools being listed as siblings.

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