mark_notifications_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that the operation is a bulk state change. It says nothing about whether the change is reversible, whether it requires authentication, whether already-read notifications are affected, or what (if anything) is returned.

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?

One short sentence with no waste and the scope qualifier front and center. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though the terseness contributes little beyond the minimum.

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 no-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete: it omits scoping (all notifications, all users?), reversibility, and the sibling distinction. An agent could invoke it correctly, but only by guessing at the behavioral edges.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 gives a specific verb ('mark') plus resource ('notifications') and scope ('all'), so an agent can tell it apart from the singular sibling mark_notification_read by the word 'all'. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but the scope word does the differentiating work.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus mark_notification_read (single) or whether it is intended as a bulk operation for a specific notification set. The agent must infer the alternative from the sibling list alone.

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