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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description goes beyond that by spelling out the live-state mutation, that escalation stops, and that incidents are marked as being worked on. It still omits idempotency (what happens if an already-acknowledged incident is passed) and auth/permission requirements.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded on the action and its consequence, with emphasis marking the state change. The trailing endpoint reference is marginally useful for debugging but is largely redundant with structured data.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential effect an agent needs (state change, escalation stopped). Only minor gaps remain around failure/idempotency behavior, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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 the required ids array and the optional teamId/x-team-id scoping are already fully documented in the schema. The description's {ids:[...]} restates the payload shape but adds no format, batching, or semantics beyond the schema.

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 (acknowledges) and resource (incidents), plus the concrete effect: stops escalation and marks them as being worked on. It is distinguishable from list/get siblings, but never contrasts with the closest sibling, spike_resolve_incidents, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Usage is only implied via the described effect (use it when you want escalation stopped and the incident marked as being worked on). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or 'use spike_resolve_incidents instead to close it out' routing statement.

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