mark_notifications_reviewed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that this is a cursor-advancing mutation and that it's meant to be done post-handling, which guards against premature calls. However, it doesn't state whether advancement is idempotent, reversible, or what effect skipping it has – meaningful gaps for a state mutation.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste; the precondition is front-loaded in the trailing clause so the agent reads the critical 'when' immediately after the action.

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-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it conveys intent and timing but omits parameter meaning and behavioral specifics (idempotency, error effects) that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it never mentions through_seq or explains that it marks all notifications up to and including that sequence number. The phrase 'durable notification cursor' hints at the concept but provides no semantics for the sole parameter.

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 ('advance') and resource ('durable notification cursor'), and adds the precondition 'after successful handling'. It's clear what it does, though 'durable notification cursor' is jargon that assumes familiarity with the notification model.

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 clause 'after successful handling' tells the agent when to call it – following the successful processing of notifications obtained elsewhere (presumably list_notifications). It doesn't name the sibling explicitly or state exclusions, keeping it out of the top tier.

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