mark_notification_read

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It effectively communicates the two modes of operation (single vs. all) and implies a mutation (mark as read). However, it lacks details about side effects, reversion, or return values, which would enhance transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without extraneous words. It front-loads the core action and efficiently covers both usage scenarios.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose and the conditional behavior based on the optional parameter. However, adding a brief note about typical use cases or expected behavior (e.g., 'This is a write operation') would make it slightly more robust.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description confirms the behavior tied to the 'notificationId' parameter (omit to mark all) but does not add new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. It explains the default for 'workspaceId' subtly.

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 explicitly states the action ('mark as read') and the resource ('notification'), and also distinguishes between marking one notification (with ID) and all notifications (without ID). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_notifications' or 'dismiss_broadcast'.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (to mark notifications read) and explains the dual behavior based on whether an ID is provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like 'dismiss_broadcast', which slightly reduces clarity.

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