acknowledge_anomaly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the anomaly will no longer appear in active anomalies, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it is reversible, if it affects other users, or if it deletes the anomaly). More behavioral context is needed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter note and two examples. It front-loads the main action and provides immediate understanding with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, what the argument is, and how to use it via examples. It lacks depth on prerequisites or the ultimate fate of the anomaly, but is largely complete for basic usage.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'anomaly_id' comes from 'get_anomalies()', providing context beyond the schema's type and title. However, no further details (e.g., format, example values) are given, resulting in adequate but not exceptional value.

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: 'Mark an anomaly as acknowledged (dismissed)'. It specifies that the anomaly will no longer appear in active anomalies, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dismiss_recommendation' and 'get_anomalies'. The purpose is specific and conveyed concisely.

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 usage when you want to dismiss an anomaly, as shown in examples. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'dismiss_recommendation' or 'create_anomaly_tickets'), and no when-not-to-use information is provided.

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