Mark a recall notification as read (default) or unread. Requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| read | No | if true, mark read; if false, mark unread. Default true | |
| recall_id | Yes | recall id from list_recall_notifications |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| read | Yes | ||
| updated | Yes | ||
| recall_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the useful authentication requirement ('Requires an API key') and clarifies the default/optional behavior. It does not contradict 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?
Two short sentences contain the essential action, the default variant, and the API key requirement with zero redundant words. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 rich input schema, the output schema, and the annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. It could have explicitly pointed to `list_recall_notifications` as the source for `recall_id`, but the schema field already provides that guidance.
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 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters, including the `read` boolean's default and the source of `recall_id`. The description adds no new parameter details beyond restating the default read behavior, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Mark'), a clear resource ('a recall notification'), and states the two possible states ('read' or 'unread') with the default behavior. This makes it immediately distinct from all sibling tools, none of which perform this action.
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 clearly states the tool's action, making it obvious when it applies, and adds the prerequisite that an API key is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool performs the same operation, so 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles, and the descriptions explicitly separate product lookup from recall search. However, the multiple recall search entry points (by query, UPC, image, and identifier) overlap enough that an agent could pick the wrong one without carefully reading the details.
Tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as add_, list_, remove_, search_, get_, create_, revoke_, and mark_. The single-word signup is the only minor deviation, but it does not undermine the overall naming system.
At 19 tools, the set is in the borderline-heavy range. The count is justified by the multiple subdomains like API key management, inventory, watch patterns, notifications, and recall searching, but it still feels slightly above the ideal well-scoped tool surface.
Core recall search, product lookup, inventory tracking, watch pattern management, notifications, and API key lifecycle are all covered well. Minor gaps exist such as no way to update a watch pattern or view account usage limits, but agents can generally work around them.