nagios_acknowledge_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states only that a problem is acknowledged, omitting that this is a state-changing action with consequences such as notifications suppression, sticky ack persistence, and comment recording. The schema reveals sticky/notify options, but the tool's broader behavior is not disclosed.

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 one clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, although it is concise at the expense of missing valuable usage and behavior context.

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?

With no annotations and only a single sentence, the description is incomplete for a state-changing tool: it does not state the expected effect, any prerequisite like the problem needing to exist, or how this differs from related tools. The full schema explains parameters but not when and why the operation is appropriate.

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 description coverage is 100%, with useful per-parameter descriptions for host_name, service_description, sticky, notify, and comment. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already does most of the work, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 Nagios operation, 'Acknowledge', and clarifies the target resource as a host or service problem. It is clear enough for selection, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nagios_add_comment_tool, which could be a plausible alternative.

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 gives only a general situation ('a Nagios host or service problem') and no guidance about when to use acknowledgment versus attaching a comment, checking status, or scheduling a check. There is no when-not or alternative routing, so an agent is left to infer its decision from sibling names alone.

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