acknowledge_problem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (does not close the problem), but it lacks details on permissions, idempotency, or state changes beyond acknowledging. For an unannotated tool, this is only partially transparent.

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—two sentences plus a compact Args block. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description explains the inputs and the primary behavioral limitation. It could mention prerequisites or effects, but the core context is present, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 provides only names and types, with 0% coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does: event_ids are described as 'Comma-separated event IDs (from get_problems output)' and message as 'Acknowledgement message'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.

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+resource ('Acknowledge Zabbix problems') and adds a crucial caveat ('does not close them'), which distinguishes it from potential close operations. It also lists the key arguments, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides contextual guidance by noting that event_ids come 'from get_problems output', indicating a direct workflow with a sibling tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the caveat 'does not close them' implies it is not a replacement for a closing operation.

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