Mark Notifications Read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. However, it only states 'Mark notifications as read' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or authentication needs. The description is too minimal to provide useful transparency beyond the obvious.

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, zero wasted words, and front-loaded with the core action. Highly concise and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate. It could optionally clarify return behavior (e.g., success confirmation), but it's not essential. Overall complete for the context.

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% with clear types and descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides—it simply repeats the two modes. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no new semantics are introduced.

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' and resource 'notifications', clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'agentgram_notifications' (likely listing) by focusing on marking as 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?

The description provides two usage modes: marking all or specific IDs. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is clear and the sibling tools help differentiate.

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