acknowledge_vcenter_alarm

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds context that the alarm remains in the triggered list but is flagged as acknowledged, which is useful behavioral information beyond the 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 concise with three paragraphs: action, effect, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure front-loads the purpose.

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 no output schema, the description explains the outcome (alarm remains in triggered list but acknowledged) and references the prerequisite tool. It could be slightly more complete by contrasting with 'reset_vcenter_alarm', but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 compensates fully by explaining each parameter: entity_name (name of entity), alarm_name (exact name from list_vcenter_alarms), and target (optional vCenter target). This adds meaningful detail beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 starts with '[WRITE] Acknowledge a triggered vCenter alarm on a VM, host, or cluster,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'reset_vcenter_alarm' by implying acknowledgment versus resetting, and references 'list_vcenter_alarms' for finding values.

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?

It provides a prerequisite to use 'list_vcenter_alarms' to find entity and alarm names, and explains the effect ('marks as seen'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., instead of reset) or compare to alternatives.

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