acknowledge_alert

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

Although annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds critical behavioral context: the API mapping to POST /alerts?action=takeownership, the control state ASSIGNED, and the preview behavior with confirmed=False. This goes well beyond the annotations and clearly discloses how the tool behaves.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It then explains the mapping, provides usage guidance, and lists parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, how it maps to the underlying API, when to use it, how to confirm changes, and parameter details. The preview behavior is disclosed, which implies the response format enough for the agent.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: alert_id (the UUID to acknowledge), confirmed (must be True to actually acknowledge, default False = preview), and target (Aria target name from config). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 specific action ('Acknowledge an active alert by taking ownership') and explicitly contrasts it with cancel_alert, clearly distinguishing the tool's purpose from a sibling. The verb 'acknowledge' plus resource 'alert' is specific and 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you want to own the alert without closing it; cancel_alert closes it for good.' It also explains the default preview mode, giving clear context on when the tool actually mutates or not.

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