streamlabs_mark_notification_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'mark as read' without mentioning idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or behavior when the notification does not exist or is already read. The description adds little beyond the name itself.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it easy to scan. Under-specification is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry the full contextual burden. It fails to mention any side effects, return behavior, or relationship to sibling notification tools. The description is barely more informative than the tool name and leaves the agent with significant ambiguity about invocation requirements.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter. It only says 'by id,' which vaguely references notificationId but does not explain its format, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The schema already defines the parameter name and type, and the description adds marginal value.

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') with a precise resource ('a single notification as read') and specifies the scope ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool streamlabs_mark_all_notifications_read, which marks all notifications.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the notificationId via streamlabs_list_notifications), and no exclusions. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and minimal description.

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