mark_notifications_read

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. 'Reports each id separately' hints at per-id outcome reporting, but with an output schema present that detail is already documented structurally, so the description adds only modest value.

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, zero filler, with the action and the timing cue front-loaded ahead of the reporting note.

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 single-required-param tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the intent and the per-id reporting behavior. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could say more about bulk failure handling.

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% and the single 'ids' array parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Ids from notifications'. The description adds no syntax, ordering, or batch-limit meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('mark notifications read') and scopes it with 'once you have handled them'. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented sibling 'notifications', though it never names or contrasts with a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'once you have handled them' gives an implied precondition for use, but there is no when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as the 'notifications' listing tool. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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