mark_notification_read

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true. The description confirms idempotency ('returns success when already read'), but adds no further behavioral context like permissions, side effects, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences. Each sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second declares idempotency. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the core behavior. It could hint that it's safe to call repeatedly, but it's already implied by idempotency. Minimal but 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter notificationId. The description adds no functional meaning beyond the schema; the parameter description 'a string that will be trimmed' is a behavioral note, not a semantic clarification.

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 clearly states the verb (mark), resource (notification), and state (read). It also mentions idempotency, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_notification or mark_notification_unread.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool (to mark a single notification as read) and notes idempotency. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use or mention alternatives like mark_all_notifications_read or mark_notification_unread.

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