Mark All Notifications Read

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic mutation action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects (e.g., affecting other users), rate limits, or whether any confirmation is needed. The tool could be destructive but the description gives no warning.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the tool's 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 should explain the result of the operation (e.g., returns count or success status). It does not. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the behavior.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameters. Nevertheless, the description adds meaning by specifying the action (mark as read) which is not evident from the empty schema. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4.

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 'Mark all notifications as read' clearly states the action (marking as read) and the resource (notifications). It resolves the ambiguity of the name 'read_all_notifications' which could imply viewing. However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'list_notifications' which is a read-only operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_notifications'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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