sophos_acknowledge_alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the action (acknowledge) but does not detail side effects, required permissions, response format, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic function. The description is minimal and does not add significant context beyond purpose.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the purpose and the relationship to the sibling tool. No unnecessary information is included, and it is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (acknowledge an alert, three parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and how it relates to alternative tools. However, it does not mention that the 'message' parameter is optional, nor does it specify any prerequisites or response characteristics, which would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (tenant_id, alert_id, message). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning or usage details for the parameters, so it provides no extra value beyond 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 clearly states it acknowledges a specific alert, using the verb 'acknowledge' and resource 'alert'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'sophos_take_alert_action' by noting it is a convenience shortcut for that tool with a fixed action, making its purpose and differentiation clear.

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 explicitly states it is a convenience shortcut equivalent to sophos_take_alert_action with action='acknowledge'. This tells the agent when to use this tool (for acknowledging) and implies when not to (for other actions, use the sibling tool). It provides clear context and an alternative.

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