Mark notifications read

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that already-read IDs are harmless, reinforcing idempotence in practical terms. It also clarifies the source of the IDs. The description does not contradict the annotations; it is consistent with idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by source and safety guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations that cover idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description provides the only missing operational context: where the IDs come from and that already-read IDs are acceptable. It is complete for correct invocation.

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 schema already describes notification_ids as 'Notification ids to mark read', but the description adds meaningful provenance by instructing the agent to take them from repovive_list_notifications. This helps prevent fabricated or irrelevant IDs and reduces ambiguity despite 100% schema coverage.

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 action ('Mark the given in-app notifications as read') and identifies the exact resource. It also ties the IDs to repovive_list_notifications, distinguishing this from conversation-related tools like repovive_mark_conversation_read.

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 explicitly tells the agent where to obtain valid IDs ('Take the ids from repovive_list_notifications') and notes that already-read IDs are safe to include. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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