Mark All Notifications Read

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns to inspect the applied/status field and explains that a false server result is reported as not_applied, not success. This reveals potential partial failure and the response format. Annotations already signal a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but this additional nuance is valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise caveat about response handling. No redundancy or filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless mutation with an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, scope, and key response nuance. It lacks usage context or alternatives, which is partially captured in Usage Guidelines, but is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Descriptions cannot add parameter meaning where none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the operation and response rather than parameters.

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 every current-user notification as read. It specifies the verb (mark), the resource (notifications), and the scope (current-user), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_notifications which read notifications.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_notifications is for viewing notifications, nor does it address when marking all as read is appropriate. The reader must infer the use case from the action itself.

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