acknowledge_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a key non-effect: the action does not convert the underlying source or claim into support. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicates, or any permission/audit implications for a mutation-like action.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a single, valuable clarification about what the tool does not do. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a six-parameter input schema with 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin for an agent to reliably invoke the tool. It captures the intent but omits critical operational context such as how to identify the exact warning, which identifiers are required, and what the 'note' field should represent.

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 provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what 'slug', 'item_id', 'warning', or 'note' should contain, nor how to choose between the 'claim' and 'source_retrieval' enum values. With six parameters and no compensation in the description, an agent receives almost no guidance for filling 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record human review of an exact warning.' It clearly states the tool's core function and adds a differentiating negative clause: it does not convert the underlying source or claim into support. It could name the sibling it complements, but the core purpose is evident.

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 implies the usage context: when a human has reviewed a warning and wants to record that review. The negative statement about not converting to support provides some exclusion guidance, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings 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.