vk_post_notifica_c728b00fdf22

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements, ownership restrictions, and how to pass the request body. It doesn't mention response format or error behavior, but for a simple proxy tool this is acceptable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by endpoint and constraints. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary detail.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: auth, ownership, body handling, and parameter aliases. It does not describe return values, but that is not critical for this proxy operation.

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 schema already describes both parameters (id and body). The description adds the alias convention (camelCase and snake_case) and clarifies the body field's purpose as JSON payload, which goes beyond the schema. This enhances semantic understanding.

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 action ('Mark a notification as (un-)read') and specifies the exact endpoint (POST /notifications/{id}), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vk_get_notifica_4bf31ea26a70. The verb 'mark' and resource 'notification' are precise.

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: use to mark a notification as read/unread, with the restriction that a user can only mark their own notifications. It also notes authentication is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer a different tool.

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