alarm_acknowledge

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

The description only labels the tool as 'Mutating,' indicating it is a write operation, but no annotations are provided. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 too terse, consisting of a single sentence that omits necessary details. While short, it lacks essential information and does not effectively use the available space.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not described, the description is incomplete. It does not cover what the tool returns or any other necessary contextual information.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the parameters. Only 'event_ids' is implied by 'by event UUID', but 'notes' and 'confirm' are completely unexplained.

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 alarms by event UUID,' which specifies the verb (acknowledge) and resource (alarms) with a clear method (by event UUID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like alarm_journal and alarm_status, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, 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.