acknowledge_violation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses insert-only/append-only semantics, that the underlying record is never touched, and the concrete consequence (stops gating writes, clears digest blockers). It omits permission/auth requirements and reversibility of the acknowledgement itself, keeping it short of a 5.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the following sentences justify the append-only behavior without redundancy. Slightly more prose than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation's behavioral impact thoroughly. The only gap is the absence of permission/attribution rules beyond the decided_by parameter, which is minor for this tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by enumerating the canonical disposition values (remediated | accepted-with-reason) and framing the key as the (check_name, object_ref) pair. This enriches the schema's example-based disposition field.

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 a specific verb (acknowledge) and resource (an open integrity violation) and clarifies the effect — the finding stops gating writes and leaves the digest's blockers. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the corrective tools by noting remediation is done elsewhere, so an agent can separate it from siblings like correct_trial_status.

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?

It provides clear context for when to call it — after remediation, which 'is done by the corrective tools first' — giving an ordering constraint against those alternatives. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative tool, so it lands at clear-context rather than full routing guidance.

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