vsz_acknowledge_alarm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'acknowledge an active alarm', which implies a state change but leaves unclear whether the alarm becomes inactive, whether the action is reversible, or any authorization requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very concise—one action sentence plus a structured Args block. It front-loads the purpose and clearly labels each parameter. No redundant text or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-explained parameters and an output schema present, but the description lacks any usage context or side-effect disclosure. It is enough for a minimal invocation but leaves the agent uncertain about when to choose it over the similar vsz_clear_alarm 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?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining 'host' as the vSZ controller IP or hostname and 'alarm_id' as the Alarm UUID with a format example. This fully covers both parameters and adds meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 states the action 'Acknowledge' and the target 'active alarm', clearly identifying the tool's function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'vsz_clear_alarm', though the distinction is implied by the verb choice.

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 provides no guidance on when to use acknowledge versus clear_alarm or other alarm tools, nor any prerequisites or context. It simply states the action without any usage exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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