scf_mark_notifications_read

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the operation is self-only, supports bulk marking, and is meant as an acknowledgment step. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then efficiently covers both parameter modes and the intended workflow. There is no filler or repetition.

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 self-scoped write operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the parameters' roles and the correct sequencing relative to scf_get_notifications. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but these are low-risk omissions for an acknowledgment operation.

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% and the schema already explains both parameters, including the precedence rule ('ignored when notification_id is given'). The description restates this behavior but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 notifications read'), the scope ('for the current user (write — self only)'), and the two invocation modes (by notification_id or all=true). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling scf_get_notifications by framing this as the write/acknowledgment counterpart.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Acknowledge after processing scf_get_notifications.' This gives the agent a clear workflow context. It does not list exclusions, but there is no competing sibling for marking notifications read, so the guidance is sufficient.

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