notifications_read_all_v1_put

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 HTTP method, auth requirement, and absence of required parameters, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., irreversibility, idempotency), response format, or what exactly is marked (e.g., scoped to the authenticated user). This is a mutation/state-changing tool, so more behavioral detail is needed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose, then covers auth and additional instructions. It is a single substantive line with useful info, though it packs several clauses, making it slightly dense but still 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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, and the description covers the core purpose, auth, and parameter necessity. However, it omits return value/response behavior, potential error cases, and does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling single-read tool, so the agent lacks some context for confident invocation.

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 input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including the oauthToken fallback to environment variables. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, repeating the auth requirement and 'no required parameters' point, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 the action ('Mark all notifications read') with the endpoint path, giving a specific verb and resource with scope ('all'). It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool notifications_read_v1_put, so it doesn't fully distinguish at the wording level.

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 use case is implied: call this to mark all notifications read. It also notes that no additional required parameters exist and provides an OAuth token requirement, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like notifications_read_v1_put or notifications_list_v1_get.

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