amber_mark_notification_read

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects (deletes database row), idempotency with specific error code, and explicitly states it is not rate-limited. This meets all behavioral transparency needs.

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, front-loading the core purpose, then adding side effects and usage notes. Every sentence is meaningful with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, error handling, and usage constraints. It is complete and leaves no significant gaps.

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 sole parameter notification_id is fully described in the input schema with a detailed example and type. The tool description does not add extra parameter information, but schema coverage is 100% and schema description is comprehensive, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool dismisses a developer notification after acknowledgment, specifying it removes it from the developer_notifications block. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete, cancel, or restore.

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 explicitly says 'Only call after the user has seen the notification content', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes the idempotent behavior with not_found response, but does not explicitly state when not to call (e.g., if already dismissed), though that is implied.

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