zabbix_acknowledge_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral side effects. It only says 'acknowledges,' but the action bitmask in the schema shows the tool can also close problems, change severity, suppress, etc. This significant behavioral scope is undisclosed, making the description inadequate for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it omits important details, making it slightly under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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's complexity (action bitmask with multiple behaviors), the description is too minimal. It does not mention the ability to close problems or change severity, nor does it describe expected outcomes or return values. The detailed schema partially compensates, but the description itself is incomplete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing detailed explanations, including the action bitmask and field purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Acknowledges') and resource ('one or more events/problems in Zabbix'), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as zabbix_get_events and zabbix_get_problems. No ambiguity about what it does.

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 tool is for acknowledging events/problems but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools or when not to use it. The context of the tool name and sibling list makes the usage inferable, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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