agora_mark_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two operating modes (explicit ids vs all_notifications=true clearing the whole inbox), which hints at scope, but says nothing about idempotency, permissions, or reversibility — material for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, no filler, and the primary purpose leads. The operational guidance (explicit ids or all_notifications) is front-loaded where an agent will see it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a 2-param mutation with no annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, and both parameter modes adequately, though it omits behavior when both parameters are supplied or when neither is.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that notification_ids targets specific notifications while all_notifications=true clears everything. Both parameters get semantic framing beyond their bare titles, though format of the ids string is not specified.

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 verb+resource: 'Mark inbox notifications as read.' Clearly distinct from read-only siblings like agora_get_notifications and agora_my_inbox. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use — 'after you have acted on them, typically right after answering at the source' — which tells the agent the triggering moment. It does not name alternative tools or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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