ack_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the bulk blast radius (rule_id and all_alerts affect 'every unacked alert') and the mutual-exclusivity constraint, but says nothing about reversibility/unack, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior when the selector rule is violated.

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 effect and the selector constraint are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then the Args list adds only what is needed. No filler sentences and nothing duplicated from the schema.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and all selector semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits confirmation/return behavior and reversibility, the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each of the three parameters is given meaning beyond its title, including the critical mutual-exclusivity contract. It stops short of stating value formats or what happens with an empty list.

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 ('mark alerts as acknowledged') and names the observable effect on a named sibling view ('drop out of the default list_alerts view'). An agent can distinguish this from list_alerts without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit selection rule ('Pass exactly one of the three selectors') plus the scope of each selector, which is real when-to-use guidance for this family of tools. It never names a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not case, so it falls short of a 5.

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