mdl_notifications_clear

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/destructiveness profile is covered. The description usefully adds the host-configured authentication requirement and a user-consent caution, but does not say what is actually destroyed (the notification becomes gone/unrecoverable) or whether related data is affected.

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 short sentences, correctly front-loaded with the action and then auth/consent caveats. The lead phrase duplicates the tool name, but nothing is bloated.

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 destructive, unauthenticated-by-default mutation with no output schema, the annotations plus the auth note cover the safety basics. What is missing is the scope distinction against mdl_notifications_clear_all and any explanation of the single required parameter.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The agent must infer from the name that notification_id targets a single notification and that the anyOf integer/string union exists; no format, identifier source, or validity guidance is given.

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?

"Notifications: clear" is essentially the tool name restated as a sentence; no verb-object expansion beyond what the identifier already says. Critically, it never distinguishes this single-item clear from the sibling mdl_notifications_clear_all, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

"Use only for an explicit user request" gives a real when-to-use constraint, which is more than most mutation tools offer. However, it never points to mdl_notifications_clear_all as the alternative for bulk clearing, leaving the primary routing decision to inference.

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