mark_all_notifications_read

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context such as 'every visible in-app notification' and 'for the authenticated user', clarifying scope and target. It also reaffirms idempotency and lack of side effects on work packages, adding value beyond annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main action and scope. The second provides usage guidance and behavioral notes. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple bulk action, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and scope. Minor missing element: does not mention what happens after marking (e.g., no confirmation or count). But overall sufficient.

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?

Input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). Baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter info, but it could explicitly state 'no parameters required.' However, the absence is clear enough.

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 every visible in-app notification as read for the authenticated user.' It specifies the resource (notifications), verb (mark as read), and scope (every visible in-app). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'mark_notification_read' which marks a single notification.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use only for an explicit clear-inbox request', providing a clear condition for when to use this tool. It also states what it does not affect ('does not modify related work packages') and highlights idempotent nature, guiding appropriate invocation.

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