acknowledge_problem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: acknowledgement does NOT close the problem. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether repeat acknowledgements mutate existing messages, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; no filler. The Args section slightly duplicates the schema's own titles, but the added meaning (comma-separated, source tool) justifies it.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover much of the safety profile. Purpose, non-closing behavior, and both parameters are addressed, leaving only auth/permission and idempotency nuance unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden; it does, defining event_ids as comma-separated IDs sourced from get_problems output and message as the acknowledgement text. Both required params are explained with format and provenance, though no validation or length constraints are given.

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?

States a specific verb (acknowledge) plus resource (Zabbix problems) and explicitly bounds scope with '(does not close them)', which cleanly separates it from any close/resolve sibling. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the event_ids arg note '(from get_problems output)' quietly routes the agent to the get_problems sibling as a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-alternative statement. Adequate but thin.

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