Mark Notification Read

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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds the concrete state transition from unread to read. It does not go further to discuss permissions, no-op behavior if already read, or reversibility via the unread sibling, but for a simple mutation this is acceptable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence adds a legitimate use case. There is no filler or repetition beyond what earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with fully documented schema and annotations indicating it is non-destructive, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No output schema or nested complexity creates additional disclosure 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 100%: both account_slug and notification_id are already described with formats and sourcing instructions. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 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?

States a specific action ('Mark'), a specific resource ('a specific notification'), and the resulting state ('as read'), with the added clarification that this acknowledges and clears unread status. This distinguishes it from bulk siblings like fizzy_mark_all_notifications_read and the inverse fizzy_mark_notification_unread.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to acknowledge notifications and clear them from unread status, giving a clear use case. It does not name alternative tools for the inverse or bulk operations, though 'specific notification' implicitly rules out the bulk sibling.

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