mark_notification_read

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explicitly stating the behavioral effect ('changes inbox state but not the related project resource'), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise, using two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and follows with contextual guidance, making it easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, side effects, and scope. It is fully adequate for an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description does not describe the 'id' parameter explicitly. However, the single parameter's purpose is strongly implied by the tool name and context, so agents can infer it is the notification ID. A dedicated description would be better.

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 one in-app notification as read'), specifies the resource ('in-app notification'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_all_notifications_read' by emphasizing 'one' and 'authenticated user'.

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 usage context ('Use after the notification has been reviewed') and clarifies what the tool does not affect ('not the related project resource'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, but the context is sufficient for decision-making.

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