pd_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 safe-by-default behavior with dry_run, which mitigates accidental actions. It also specifies required env vars. However, it does not describe side effects of actual acknowledge (state change) or idempotency.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, safe-by-default, environment requirements. It is concise and front-loaded with no extraneous information.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the purpose of reason and confirm_token, the format of incident_id, and what the tool returns upon success or failure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the dry_run parameter, noting it controls safety. For incident_id, reason, and confirm_token, no additional meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Acknowledge a PagerDuty incident via the PagerDuty REST API', which clearly identifies the verb (acknowledge) and resource (PagerDuty incident). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pd_resolve_alert and opsgenie_acknowledge_alert.

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 a clear usage guideline with 'Safe-by-default: dry_run=True returns the intended action without sending', indicating when to use dry_run. It also mentions required environment variables. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like pd_resolve_alert or state when not to use.

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