acknowledge_incident

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, whether the action is reversible, or any implications of the 'autoAssign' field. The tool appears to be a mutation (acknowledge), but the description provides no details on state changes or postconditions beyond the input structure.

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 a single paragraph but a bit repetitive ('input:' and 'Variables: input' restate the same thing). It is reasonably short, but the structure is awkward and could be more concise. It does include the essential example, so it earns a middle score.

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 a simple mutation with no output schema, and the description provides the input shape and example. However, it lacks usage context, behavioral details, and any mention of the optional 'customer_slug' parameter (though that's covered by the schema). For a straightforward action, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 for the 'input' field only references 'GraphQL: IncidentAcknowledgementInput!', which is minimal. The description compensates by listing the fields (incidentId, acknowledgementMethod, autoAssign) and providing an example JSON, giving the agent concrete guidance. This is significant added value beyond the 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 uses the specific verb 'Acknowledge' with the resource 'incident', clearly indicating the action and target. It also lists the input fields, which helps define the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'acknowledge_assign_and_close_incident' or 'close_incident', so it lacks differentiation.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states 'Acknowledge an incident' and gives an example, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use this when you only want to acknowledge without closing.' This leaves the decision to the agent without comparative direction.

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