Mark All Notifications Read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the authenticated-user scope and the mutating nature of the action, but it does not describe whether the change is reversible, what the response is, or any side effects beyond marking notifications as read.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It states the operation and scope efficiently, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter 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 simple zero-parameter mutation, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what happens and for whom. It could be slightly more complete by noting what is returned or whether this action is reversible, especially since no output schema is provided.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty schema is consistent with the description; no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 action ('mark all notifications as read') and the scope ('for the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_notifications and other notification-related operations.

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 when to use the tool: when the intent is to clear the unread state for all notifications. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage guidance is mostly inferred rather than stated.

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