acknowledge_alert

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the exact field mutated (acknowledged=true), the idempotent behavior on repeat calls, and that a work note is optional. It does not cover permissions or the response payload, keeping it 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?

Three compact sentences with the effect stated first, then the parity comparison, then the idempotency caveat. The trailing '**[Write]**' tag is mildly redundant given readOnlyHint=false, but nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation, idempotency, and the optional note. The only gap is that it hints at but doesn't state what the response contains for already-acknowledged alerts.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already carries their meaning. The description only reinforces that work_notes is optional and attached to the acknowledgement, which is marginal added value.

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 and resource ('Acknowledge an alert') and pins down the exact effect ('sets acknowledged=true, exactly like the "Acknowledge" list action'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_alert or close_alert, but the operation 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?

The note that already-acknowledged alerts are 'reported, not re-written' implicitly says when this call is a no-op, which helps selection. However, there is no explicit guidance on choosing this over update_alert or close_alert, so usage is only implied.

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