Acknowledge Alert

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

Adds value beyond annotations by explaining that acknowledgment removes alerts from the unread list but preserves them in history. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, and description aligns with those. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and effect. Every word is purposeful and no redundancy.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: purpose, effect, and a key usage constraint.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, so description does not need to add much. The description does not provide additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action (mark as read/acknowledged), the effect (removes from unread list but preserves history), and distinguishes from sibling tools like metrx_get_alerts and metrx_configure_alert_threshold. The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use ('Do NOT use for resolving the underlying issue'), providing a clear exclusion. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for resolving issues, so it falls short of the top score.

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