gateway_notification_ack

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

With no annotations beyond the title, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds a permission requirement ('Requires notifications:read') and scoping ('one visible notification'), which is helpful, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, failure modes, or whether this is idempotent. The mutation aspect is clear, but additional behavioral detail would be valuable.

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 sentence plus a permission note, with the core action front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, one required, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and permission. It does not clarify what 'visible' means or specify error behavior, but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward operation.

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 must compensate for missing parameter details. It does so by spelling out the state values ('seen, read, or unread') and implying that notification_id refers to a 'visible notification.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more explicit about parameter names and constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Mark') on a specific resource ('one visible notification') with the possible outcomes ('seen, read, or unread'). This clearly distinguishes it from related notification tools like list, get, publish, or topic_update, which have different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (to change a notification's read state) but does not explicitly compare it to sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'one visible notification' hints at a single-item scope, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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