thruk_remove_acknowledgement

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'remove' with no info on side effects, permissions, required state, or whether removal is permanent. Barely any transparency.

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 one short sentence, which is concise but lacks any structure (e.g., usage notes). It could be expanded without losing conciseness to include parameter usage or context.

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 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the outcome is, or any prerequisites. Completely inadequate for an effective agent invocation.

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 33% (only backends has a description). The description itself does not explain the role of host and service parameters, nor how they identify the acknowledgement. With low coverage, description should compensate but does not.

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 'Remove an acknowledgement.' states the verb and object, but is vague about scope (host vs service) and does not distinguish from siblings like thruk_acknowledge or thruk_stale_acks. It is minimally clear but lacks specificity.

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. No context on prerequisites (e.g., acknowledgement must exist) or conditions. Sibling tools like thruk_acknowledge and thruk_bulk_acknowledge are present but not referenced.

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