opsgenie_acknowledge_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry_run safety mechanism and the API key dependency, but does not explain the actual effect of acknowledging an alert (e.g., permanent acknowledgment, notification implications) or failure scenarios.

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 very concise: three sentences that state purpose, key behavioral note, and a prerequisite. No redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with zero schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and the meaning of parameters like reason and confirm_token, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only addresses dry_run with 'Safe-by-default: dry_run=True returns the intended action without sending.' It does not clarify the purpose or format of alert_id, reason, or confirm_token, leaving significant gaps.

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 resource ('OpsGenie alert'), using the API. It distinguishes itself from siblings like opsgenie_close_alert, which handles a different action.

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?

Mentions the safe-by-default dry_run behavior and the required environment variable, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pd_acknowledge_alert or when not to use it.

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