Mark ModDB notifications as read

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already tells the agent this is a mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds the dual-mode behavior, but does not disclose whether marking is idempotent, reversible, what happens to already-read ids, or what occurs if both parameters are supplied.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste that front-loads the verb and names both modes compactly. Nothing is padded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the what but not the operational edges (param precedence when both are set, error behavior for unknown ids, confirmation of affected count). It is minimally complete rather than fully informative.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including 'ids from list_notifications'). The description merely restates the same two modes in prose, adding no syntax, format, or precedence information beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('mark ... as read') and resource ('notifications') and spells out the two operating modes, ids vs all. It is naturally distinguishable from the sibling list_notifications, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description ('mark as read'), and the two modes are stated, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_notifications, whether ids must be unread/owned, or any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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