acknowledge_incident

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the acknowledgement is attributed to the API key's owner — but says nothing about the resulting state change (status transition, notification silencing) or side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations describing outcomes, the definition leaves the agent without knowing what acknowledgement actually changes about the incident. Parameter documentation is fully delegated to the schema, but behavioral completeness is thin.

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 100%: id, project, and workspace each carry their own descriptions including defaults and the list_workspaces source. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('acknowledge') and resource ('incident'), so an agent can distinguish it from list_incidents, get_incident, or create_incident. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling, post_incident_update, but the action 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'as the API key's owner' implies a permission context but does not tell the agent when acknowledgement is the right action versus posting an update or leaving the incident alone.

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