wiki_mark_notifications_read

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action, omitting details on reversibility, idempotency, side effects on other users, or what the output contains. The presence of an output schema may partially compensate, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action. However, adding structure like separate lines for each mode would improve scannability. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no required fields, the description covers the main functionality. However, it lacks parameter format details and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps. The output schema exists but is not referenced. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must elaborate on both parameters. It mentions ids and mark_all but does not specify the format of ids (e.g., comma-separated, array), allowed values, or behavior when both are provided. The defaults in the schema are not explained.

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 notifications as read. It specifies two modes: using ids for specific notifications or mark_all=true for all. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wiki_get_notifications or wiki_get_unread_count, which are for reading or counting.

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 description explains how to use each parameter (ids vs mark_all) but does not provide exclusion criteria or mention when not to use the tool. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, such as needing to fetch unread notifications first, or consequences of marking all.

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