Mark notifications read

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope distinction that all=true affects every notification, which is context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or interaction when both ids and all are supplied.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the unspecified precedence when both 'ids' and 'all' are provided.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely discharges it: it explains that 'ids' are the notifications to mark and 'all=true' marks everything. It does not mention the 200-item cap or the precedence between the two params, but the core semantics of both parameters are supplied.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Marks the given notification ids as read'. An agent can immediately distinguish this mutation from the sibling read tool get_notifications. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the read/write contrast is unmistakable.

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 implies the two invocation modes (specific ids vs. all=true) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or warnings about the bulk 'all=true' path. No alternative tools are referenced, though none really compete here.

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