event_acknowledge

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint false), idempotent (idempotentHint true), and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds that it marks events as acknowledged and can close them, which is consistent but adds limited new behavioral insight.

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 sentences long, front-loading the primary action and then adding a secondary use case. Every sentence is necessary and free of verbosity.

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 straightforward purpose, the description covers the main functionality and the optional closing of events. With annotations and an output schema present, the missing details like permissions or return values are less critical, making the description sufficiently complete.

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 100% with each parameter already well-documented. The tool description does not provide additional parameter details beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline without adding significant extra meaning.

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 acknowledges events in Zabbix, explaining what acknowledging means and that it can also close events. This distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like event_get and problem_get.

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 explains when to use the tool: to mark events as acknowledged to show staff awareness and optionally close resolved events. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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