ecp_notifications_mark_all_read

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without adding context like whether the operation is reversible, whether it affects all notification types, or what response to expect. Minimal disclosure for a state-changing operation.

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, scannable sentence that conveys the exact behavior with no filler. It is perfectly sized for a zero-argument tool.

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?

For a trivial zero-parameter action, the description covers the core behavior. It lacks detail on the returned value or scope, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, parents the brevity is acceptable and unlikely to confuse an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to explain here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist and the empty schema already documents this.

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 read' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It correctly differentiates from sibling ecp_notifications_mark_read (which marks individual notifications) by emphasizing 'all', so the agent cannot confuse them.

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 implies the use case: when the user wants to mark every notification as read. However, it does not explicitly compare against the sibling ecp_notifications_mark_read (for a single notification) or ecp_notifications_clear_all (which may delete them). The intended applicability is clear but not explicitly structured.

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