mark_notifications_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action's effect on all unread notifications or selected ids and explains the downstream consequence for future check-ins. It doesn't mention irreversibility, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 concise sentences, with the action front-loaded and the usage guidance and effect following naturally. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, and what effect it has on future interactions. Minor details like explicit auth requirements or irreversibility are not stated, but they aren't essential for correct invocation.

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 input schema already covers both parameters at 100%, including the token format and the default behavior for notification_ids. The description restates that notifications can be marked all at once or by specific ids, but adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Mark your notifications as read') and clearly distinguishes two operation scopes: all unread notifications or a specific list of ids. This makes it easy to tell apart from siblings like catch_up, which fetches notifications rather than mutating their state.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call it: 'after processing catch_up so your next check-in only shows what's new.' It gives clear contextual timing, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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