Acknowledge a JSM alert

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

The annotations already declare idempotency and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds valuable context by explaining escalation suppression, the no-op on already-acknowledged alerts, and especially the asynchronous nature: 'The response confirms the request was accepted, not that the alert changed.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps set agent expectations.

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 largely well-structured and front-loaded, with the core behavior in the first sentence and clear sections for Args, Returns, and async behavior. It loses a point because the example's mention of 'note' is extraneous and inconsistent with the schema, and the Args section partially duplicates the schema's existing parameter description.

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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description covers the key operator needs: what the action does, how it differs from closing, its idempotency, and how to verify success via jsm_get_request_status. The misleading 'note' in the example is the main completeness gap, and it could have also explicitly pointed to jsm_list_alerts for obtaining the full alert_id as the schema does.

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 schema already fully documents alert_id with an example and the warning not to use the tinyId, so the description adds little beyond repeating that. The example then introduces a 'note="Investigating, RVS"' argument that is not part of the input schema and would violate additionalProperties=false, potentially misleading an agent into passing an invalid parameter.

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 'Acknowledge' and resource 'open JSM alert', and clearly states the effect: 'stopping further escalation notifications'. It also distinguishes itself from jsm_close_alert by stating 'It does not resolve the alert', which separates it from a key sibling tool.

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 when to use it: 'Acknowledging signals that a human has picked the alert up.' It also names an alternative with the condition: 'use jsm_close_alert for that' when resolving. The no-op note for already-acknowledged alerts clarifies expected behavior in an edge case.

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