alert_acknowledge

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the three platforms use different endpoints and different id shapes, and dry_run reports which platform's acknowledge API would be invoked. Annotations already carry the write/destructive/idempotency profile, so the description's job is additive, which it does. Minor tension: it calls the action 'reversible' while destructiveHint=true, but this is state-modification vs. undo-ability, not a direct contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag and the core action, then a genuinely useful dry_run note, then terse parameter docs. The structured Args block is slightly redundant with the prose but each line earns its place except target, which is thin.

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 3-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers parameters, the preview path, and cross-platform differences — enough to call it correctly. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or what a successful acknowledge returns, minor gaps given no output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: alert_id is explained as AlertActiveID on SolarWinds, sensor objid on PRTG, and problem event id on Zabbix — meaning that exists nowhere in the schema. dry_run and target are also given semantics (preview-without-acknowledging; omit for default).

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 with scope ('Acknowledge one active alert'), and immediately classifies it as a reversible triage action. An agent can distinguish it from sibling mutators like mute_alerts, unmute_alerts, or schedule_maintenance without opening any schema.

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 gives clear operational guidance for dry_run ('preview... the part of this call most worth confirming first') but never states when to prefer acknowledge over the similar sibling triage tools (mute_alerts, unmute_alerts, schedule_maintenance). Usage is implied by the 'reversible triage action' framing rather than explicitly routed.

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