acknowledge_vcenter_alarm

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful state behavior beyond that: alarm remains active, acknowledged=true persists until condition clears, and an unknown pair returns a not-found error. It also explicitly labels the action as [WRITE], reinforcing the mutation without contradicting 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?

Each sentence earns its place: purpose, non-effect, persistence behavior, alternative tool, prerequisite/error, and return format. The [WRITE] marker front-loads the key action, and the structure is scannable without fluff.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the state change, the sibling alternative, the required data source, error behavior, and the return fields. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by instructing the agent to source entity_name and alarm_name from list_vcenter_alarms output and warning that an unknown pair causes a not-found error, which is practical guidance beyond the schema field descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('acknowledge') and resource ('vCenter alarm'), and immediately distinguishes the action by saying it marks as seen WITHOUT clearing. It explicitly names reset_vcenter_alarm as the different alternative, so an agent can tell this tool apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('marks it as seen'), when-not-to-use (does not clear it), when to choose the sibling instead (remove entirely after fixing cause, use reset_vcenter_alarm), and a concrete prerequisite (get exact entity_name and alarm_name from list_vcenter_alarms first). Nothing is left to inference.

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