Mark one of the user's notifications as checked (reviewed) or unchecked. Call after the user says they've dealt with an alert, or to un-mark one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checked | No | ||
| notification_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the two states (checked/unchecked) but does not mention idempotency, error handling (e.g., missing notification), or any authentication requirements. Basic but not fully 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?
Two sentences with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and immediate context. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior adequately. It could mention return value or side effects, but for a toggle action it is sufficient. Slightly incomplete on error conditions.
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% meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. The description only indirectly explains 'checked' by mentioning 'checked or unchecked', but 'notification_id' is not explained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool marks notifications as checked or unchecked, with a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('notifications'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_notifications' by indicating it modifies state.
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?
Explicitly says to call after user deals with an alert or to un-mark, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or any alternatives, though the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct data type or action (e.g., product analysis, deal types, FBA operations). Even similar-sounding tools like get_deal_results and get_oa_deals are clearly separated by domain (A2A vs OA) in descriptions. No significant overlap.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., analyse_product, create_deal_task, get_credits). The consistent 'get_' prefix for retrieval tools and varied but predictable action verbs make the set easy to navigate.
At 37 tools, the set is large but covers a broad Amazon seller ecosystem (research, sourcing, FBA, deals, monitoring). Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count reflects the domain's complexity without being bloated.
The tool surface covers all major seller workflows: product analysis, profit calculation, sourcing, deal discovery, storefront monitoring, FBA operations, purchase tracking, price alerts, and reconciliation. No obvious gaps for core tasks.
