Mark notifications read

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

Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: messages remain in server cache, are still readable via list_messages, and older servers return per-id ok:false results without an overall error. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by a useful sibling distinction and a version-specific warning. Every sentence contributes operational value without unnecessary padding.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is complete: it covers behavior, the key alternative, version constraints, and a subtle failure mode. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific action ('Clears notifications on subscribers' devices') and a clear resource. It also distinguishes itself from delete_messages by explaining the exact behavioral difference, so an agent can tell which tool to use.

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?

It explicitly contrasts this tool with delete_messages, explaining when each is appropriate. It also adds a version requirement (ntfy 2.16.0 or newer) and warns about per-id result checking, giving clear operational guidance.

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