acknowledge_problem

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful preview-then-confirm workflow, which the annotations cannot express. What is missing is which of the five actions is destructive or irreversible (close vs. acknowledge vs. change_severity), whether actions apply atomically, and what the preview contains.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the workflow constraint is positioned right after the purpose statement where it is most needed. The phrasing is slightly clipped ('first call returns a preview' leaves the second call implicit), but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool bundling five distinct operations with no output schema, and the description never explains how multiple actions combine, what the preview returns, or whether closing is reversible. For a tool with this much behavioral surface, two sentences covering purpose and the confirmation loop leave too much to inference.

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 every parameter including the actions enum, eventid, message, severity and confirm_token is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces which actions exist but adds no syntax, ordering, or interaction rules beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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 names concrete verbs and resource: 'Acknowledge, comment on, re-rate or close problems', which maps cleanly onto the actions enum and distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_active_problems. The opening line is specific enough that an agent knows this is the mutation endpoint, though the tool name 'acknowledge_problem' understates the broader scope only the description reveals.

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?

'Two-step: first call returns a preview' tells the agent the calling sequence, and the schema points to get_active_problems as the source of event ids. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over zabbix_raw_api or other siblings, no statement about which action combinations are valid, and no mention of prerequisites or permissions.

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