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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds specifics: it changes live incident state, stops escalation, and marks as worked on, plus the HTTP endpoint. No contradictions; the description enriches understanding beyond annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The two sentences are efficient, though the capitalized words are somewhat stylized but not detrimental.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the effect (state change, stops escalation) and the HTTP method. It provides enough context for a mutation tool with good annotations and schema coverage.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the API endpoint format but does not elaborate on parameter details beyond what's in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'ACKNOWLEDGES' and resource 'incidents', clearly stating it acknowledges one or more incidents and changes live state. This distinguishes it from siblings like spike_resolve_incidents or spike_set_incident_priority.

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 explains that acknowledging stops escalation and marks incidents as being worked on, providing clear context for when to use. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool names, but the purpose is clear enough.

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