Acknowledge or resolve an alert

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by clarifying that acknowledge means 'seen/working' and resolve means 'done', and by noting the optional resolution note is written to the audit trail. This is behavioral context not present in the annotations. The 'Safe to repeat' statement aligns with idempotentHint=true, so there is no contradiction.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the optional note and the idempotency safety in a natural order. There is no redundancy or filler, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, which covers return values. The description explains the two actions, the audit trail note, and idempotency. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for a straightforward action tool with annotations and an output schema, it is reasonably complete. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens if the alert is already resolved.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the meaning of the action parameter (acknowledge vs resolve) and the purpose of the resolution note. It does not explicitly define alertId or caregiverId, but those are self-explanatory identifiers. Overall it adds meaning to the most ambiguous 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 states a clear verb-resource pair: acknowledge or resolve an alert. It also explains the two action meanings (seen/working vs done) and the optional resolution note, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle medication, check-ins, or planning. Though it does not explicitly name an alternative, the purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like call_for_help or daily_checkin. The description only explains what it does, not the conditions that select it. No exclusions, no context about appropriate scenarios, and no reference to other tools. This leaves an agent without routing information.

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