ariel_mark_notifications_read

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the important scope detail that all notifications are affected, not just one. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds limited behavioral context beyond the schema and annotation signals.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the complete action with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'Mark', 'all', 'notifications', and 'as read' together fully specify the operation.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description is fully adequate. The annotations cover the read-only/destructive safety profile, and the description covers the effect and scope. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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, and schema coverage is effectively 100% because there is nothing to document. The description correctly communicates the action without needing parameter details, so the baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('mark'), a clear resource ('notifications'), and the exact state change ('as read'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like ariel_get_notifications and ariel_get_unread_count, which retrieve rather than modify.

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 intended use is implied by the action itself: call this when the user wants all notifications marked read. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related notification tools, provide context like 'after viewing notifications', or mention that no alternative sibling performs this action.

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