acknowledge_vcenter_alarm

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

Beyond annotations (which are neutral), the description discloses that this is a write operation ([WRITE]), that the alarm remains active with acknowledged=true, and that the action is audited. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line summary, then behavioral details, prerequisites, alternative, audit note, and an Args section. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description fully covers return format (dict with expected fields), prerequisites, error handling, and alternative tool, making it complete for agent use.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds full semantic meaning for each parameter: entity_name is a VM/host/cluster name from list_vcenter_alarms, alarm_name is exact definition name with example, target is a vCenter target from config with default behavior.

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 clearly states the verb 'acknowledge' and resource 'vCenter alarm' with the critical nuance that it marks as seen without clearing, distinguishing it from the sibling reset_vcenter_alarm.

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 context: requires prior use of list_vcenter_alarms, error condition for unknown pairs, and directs to reset_vcenter_alarm for full removal. Could briefly state when not to use (e.g., if clearing is needed), but the alternative is well noted.

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