acknowledge_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and operational nuances. The only disclosed behavior is suppressing notifications; it does not mention reversibility, permissions, sticky/persistent behavior, or the acknowledgment lifecycle beyond the schema defaults.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that immediately states the action and purpose without extraneous wording. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-sentence description only covers the primary purpose, omitting expected return values, whether the action is reversible, and operational context such as prerequisites or consequences. This is insufficient for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 specifies the action (acknowledge), the target resource (host problem in Centreon), and the purpose (suppress notifications). It distinguishes from siblings like acknowledge_service by explicitly mentioning 'host'.

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 phrase 'to suppress notifications' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus related tools like acknowledge_service or add_downtime_host, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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