acknowledge_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary effect (mark as working on it) and the return value ('Dict: Updated incident information'), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects such as notifications, permissions, or reversibility, so the behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact args list and a return line. Every phrase contributes, and there is no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

This is a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, and the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type. It does not elaborate on prerequisites or state transitions, but given the tool's complexity, the information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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's parameter explanations are essential. It provides basic meaning for both parameters: incident_id is a 'PagerDuty incident ID' and note is an 'Optional acknowledgement note'. While these are helpful, they are not deeply detailed and partially echo the schema titles, so they add modest 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 clearly states the action 'Acknowledge' and the resource 'an incident', with the parenthetical 'mark as working on it' providing the semantic effect. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_incident, which marks an incident as resolved. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool ('mark as working on it') but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like resolve_incident or add_incident_note. It provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the context implied rather than stated.

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