Mark Notification Unread

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description accurately reflects a non-destructive state change. It adds the intention 'flag notifications for later attention', but does not disclose further behavioral details such as idempotency, permissions, or return behavior. No contradiction exists.

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 short sentences with no filler. The operation is front-loaded, and the purpose follows immediately. Every word adds value.

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 simple tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and why to use it. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly differentiating from the read-marking sibling, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

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%, with both account_slug and notification_id clearly documented including format and where to obtain them. The description does not repeat parameter details, which is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly states the operation ('Mark ... as unread') and the resource ('a specific notification'). The word 'specific' distinguishes it from bulk notification operations like mark-all, and the unread state distinguishes it from the read-marking sibling.

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 second sentence gives a clear use case: 'Use this to flag notifications for later attention.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it, such as pointing to fizzy_mark_notification_read for marking notifications as read.

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