alerts_ack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the mutation and safety profile. The description adds only the scope of acknowledgment and says nothing about side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements beyond what the annotations cover.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core action and scope immediately, which is appropriate for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps around id format and parameter interaction. It does not explain return values, though no output schema exists to relieve that burden.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by mapping 'by id' to the ids parameter and 'or all of them' to the all parameter. It does not specify id format, null handling, or what happens if both parameters are supplied, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Acknowledge alerts,' and clarifies scope with 'by id, or all of them.' It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings like alerts_clear or alerts_update, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states the two acknowledgment modes (by id or all) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as alerts_clear or alerts_update. There are no exclusions or contextual conditions provided.

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