alert_acknowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a WRITE action with medium risk, that it is reversible, and that the ID shapes and endpoints differ across SolarWinds, PRTG, and Zabbix. It could go further by describing failure modes or post-acknowledgment effects, but it covers the most important safety-relevant traits.

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 organized with a clear action header, a practical dry-run tip, and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 multiple platforms, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation details: parameters, platform-specific ID shapes, reversibility, and preview behavior. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not describe the expected return value after a real acknowledgment or point to a sibling tool like active_alerts as the source of alert IDs, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 must compensate for all three parameters. It fully does: alert_id is explained per platform, dry_run's preview behavior is stated, and target's default behavior is clarified. This goes well beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Acknowledge one active alert', and frames it as a 'reversible triage action'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like mute_alerts, unmute_alerts, and list_events, which have different intents.

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 context by instructing the agent to pass dry_run=True to preview and identify which platform's acknowledge API will be called. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the singular 'one active alert' and the dry-run guidance make the appropriate use case clear.

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