mark_notification_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool can mark as read or unread via the `read` parameter, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, permissions, or side effects.

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 clear sentence. It is concise but lacks any structure (e.g., separate paragraphs). However, every word earns its place, and the format is direct.

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?

With 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return value (though an output schema exists), prerequisites, or what happens to the notification state. More context is needed for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the `read` parameter and its default behavior, but completely omits the `id` and `workspace` parameters. The `id` parameter is required but not described, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Mark a notification read' with a specific verb and resource, and it explicitly distinguishes the unread functionality by mentioning `read=False`. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'archive_notification' or 'mark_all_notifications_read'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'mark_all_notifications_read', 'archive_notification', and 'notifications_unread_count', but the description does not provide any context for choosing among them.

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