Mark notifications read

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the action affects only the user's own view and that others cannot tell, which is not stated in the structured annotations. It aligns with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true without contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core action and effect before adding the important privacy note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, effect, scope, and privacy implications. The schema covers parameter details, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, with both parameters already documented: account and seen_at. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but it is consistent with the parameters by saying 'up to now', matching the seen_at default of now. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 every notification up to now as seen', and clearly states the effect of resetting the unread count. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling read-only tools like get_notifications and get_unread_count because it describes an action that changes 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to mark notifications as seen and reset the unread count. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for this simple mutation the implied usage is clear and no competing sibling tool exists.

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