mark_notification_read

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is a write operation (marks as read) and requires an API key, but does not mention any side effects, idempotency, or behavior if the notification is already read. The description is thin on detail.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separate lines for usage) but is efficient overall.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the return value, parameter semantics, or behavior under edge cases. It does not fully equip the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 add meaning to parameters. However, it does not explain the 'id' parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning (e.g., notification ID). This is a critical gap.

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 uses the verb 'Mark' with the resource 'a single notification' and state 'as read', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'mark_all_notifications_read' which marks all notifications, so purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions the requirement of 'IWMM_API_KEY', but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like marking all as read or listing notifications. There is no context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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