Acknowledge Service Messages

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that a warning reappears if its condition persists, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers the two usage modes and behavioral nuance. No output schema, but for a simple acknowledgment tool the description is sufficient for an agent to use correctly. Could mention return values, but not critical.

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% and the description adds essential context beyond the schema: for 'id' it references get_service_messages, and for 'address' it provides an example format. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 verb 'confirm/dismiss' and the resource 'active service messages' with a concrete example ('clear a low-battery or unreachable warning'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_service_messages.

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?

Provides explicit context for using the tool: provide alarm id for a single message or channel address for all messages. It notes that a warning reappears if conditions persist. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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