mark_all_notifications_for_event_as_read

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

The description explicitly labels it as a 'write action' that 'changes state on your account,' adding context beyond the annotations (which already indicate readOnlyHint=false). It also warns against speculative calls, providing behavioral nuance. While the annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds meaningful intent guidance, so it earns a 4.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. The warning about speculative use is valuable and not redundant. It is ideally sized for quick comprehension.

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 simple state-changing operation, the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and its side effects, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to fill.

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 description does not discuss parameters, but the input schema already provides clear descriptions for both 'event_id' (the Partiful event ID) and 'fields' (though it says no selectable fields are available). With 100% schema description coverage, the description need not add parameter details, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Mark all notifications for a Partiful event as read.' This is a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('notifications for a Partiful event'), and it naturally distinguishes itself from the many read-only sibling tools (all 'get_*' tools) by indicating a state-changing action.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use: 'Only call this when the user's intent is clearly to mark notifications read; do not call it speculatively to 'check' notification state.' This clearly delineates appropriate from inappropriate use, which is especially important given the sibling tools are all read-only.

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