acknowledge_vcenter_alarm

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

The description details the behavior: 'Marks the alarm as seen by an operator. The alarm remains in the triggered list but is flagged as acknowledged.' This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and adds context about the non-destructive state change. No side effects like permission requirements are disclosed, but overall it is transparent.

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 (4-5 sentences) and well-structured: it opens with an operation type tag, states the purpose, describes the behavioral effect, and lists parameters in a clear 'Args:' block. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, and preparation guidance. However, it lacks mention of the return value or output format, especially since the tool has no output schema. Given the simplicity and presence of annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: entity_name is 'Name of the entity with the alarm (VM name, host name, or cluster name),' alarm_name is 'Exact alarm definition name from list_vcenter_alarms output,' and target is 'Optional vCenter target name from config.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 a '[WRITE]' tag and clearly states the action: 'Acknowledge a triggered vCenter alarm on a VM, host, or cluster.' It defines the verb (acknowledge) and resource (vCenter alarm), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vcenter_alarms and reset_vcenter_alarm by mentioning they serve different purposes.

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 description explicitly instructs to 'Use list_vcenter_alarms to find entity_name and alarm_name values,' providing a clear preparation step. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or describe alternatives such as reset_vcenter_alarm for different actions.

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