alert_acknowledge

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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: it auto-handles ETag (concurrency) and 'captures prior state', implying an undo path via undo_list/undo_apply. It does omit what state transition occurs and why the tool is flagged destructive, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 mode/risk tag leads, the one-line purpose follows, and the Args block is terse with no filler. Every sentence adds information an agent needs before calling.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description plus annotations give enough to invoke it correctly: both params are explained, concurrency handling is disclosed, and prior-state capture is noted. Only the resulting state change after acknowledge is left unstated.

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 document both parameters. 'alert_ext_id as returned by alert_list' gives a concrete provenance for the required ID, and target is explained as a Prism Central config name with an explicit omit-for-default rule — meaning the bare schema does not provide.

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+resource ('Acknowledge an alert') and tags it as a WRITE operation with a risk level. It is clearly distinguishable from alert_list and alert_triage_rca, but it never contrasts itself with the close sibling alert_resolve, which performs a semantically adjacent action on the same resource.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing away from alternatives. With alert_resolve and analyze_alert in the sibling set, the agent gets no signal about when acknowledging is the right action versus resolving or triaging.

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