vibemk_acknowledge_problem

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It merely states the action without explaining consequences such as suppressing notifications, requiring specific permissions, or altering the acknowledged state in a way that affects future monitoring behavior.

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 short sentences that capture the essential purpose without any redundant wording or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded, immediately conveying the tool's core function.

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?

Given the tool is simple and no output schema is present, the description should still explain what 'acknowledge' means in operational terms. It does not mention that acknowledging typically dismisses or marks a problem as handled, nor does it clarify parameter usage beyond the schema, leaving a knowledgeable agent to infer expected behavior.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters, exceeding the 80% coverage threshold, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. Descriptions like 'Type: host or service' and 'Service description (for service ack)' add some useful context, but they remain minimal and do not elaborate on value constraints or relationships between parameters.

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 target (host or service problem), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_comment or schedule_downtime, the name and description leave little doubt about the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as adding a comment or rescheduling a check. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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