Mark notification read

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's restatement of idempotency is partly redundant. However, it adds genuinely new context: marking an already-read notification succeeds with no change, and unread/delete are not possible via the API, which is not derivable from the 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, idempotency, negative scope). No filler and the core action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter state mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, idempotency semantics, and capability boundaries. Only the response shape is unspecified, which is minor for this kind of tool.

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 a single well-documented integer id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful provenance ('the id from notification_list'), telling the agent where a valid value originates, which the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb (mark as read), the exact resource (a single account notification), and scopes it to one item. It also names notification_list as the source of the id, distinguishing it from the sibling list tool.

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?

Tells the agent where the required id comes from (notification_list) and rules out unread/delete operations, which prevents misuse. It stops short of explicitly saying when this is not needed, but the context is clear enough.

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