Mark notifications read

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope detail that the operation affects all inbox notifications at once, but does not describe permissions, return values, or any side effects beyond the read state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of the title. Every word carries meaning: 'all' sets scope and 'read' defines the outcome.

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 zero-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive tool, the one-sentence description is sufficient to select and invoke it correctly. Nothing about input requirements or side effects is missing at this complexity level.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description's scope statement ('all inbox notifications') clarifies the target of the operation without needing parameter documentation.

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 names a concrete action ('mark') and a specific resource ('all inbox notifications') with a clear resulting state ('as read'). This accurately distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_threads and inbox, which retrieve rather than mutate.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned. The intended usage is implied by the action itself, but the description does not help an agent choose between this and related notification tools.

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