vibo_mark_notifications_read

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

The description discloses that the tool is confirm-gated (without confirm:true, no action is taken) and that readAll:true clears all notifications. These are behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, adding meaningful context about side effects and verification.

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 a single concise sentence with a short second clause, front-loading the core action and the two usage options. Every word earns its place 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 state-change tool with well-documented parameters and a readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description covers the essential usage modes and the confirm requirement. It omits return value details, but no output schema exists and the schema already documents the confirm behavior, so the description is 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for the three parameters, including the confirm preview behavior and the meaning of readAll. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('notifications as read'), clearly indicating a state-changing operation. It distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings like vibo_list_notifications and vibo_get_notifications_count by making the mutation explicit.

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?

It explains the two primary invocation modes (specific notificationIds or readAll:true), and mentions the confirm gate, giving clear context on how to run the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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