ecp_notifications_mark_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the core mutation (mark read) but does not mention idempotency, whether the notification must exist, any permissions required, or what the response contains, leaving the agent to infer these.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the essential action and scope, earning its place for such a simple 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows the action and the id parameter, but it lacks context about the id meaning, side effects, and relationship to related notification tools. It is acceptable but has clear gaps.

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. It only says 'one notification' and does not explain that the id identifies the notification to mark or any format or source for the id. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare 'id' property.

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') and resource ('notification') and explicitly scopes to 'one', which distinguishes it from the sibling ecp_notifications_mark_all_read. The action is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mark_all_read, delete, clear_all, or list. The 'one' suggests a single-item operation, but the description does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools.

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