notifications_mark_read

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency (no error on already-read), the unread-count side effect, and the single required parameter. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a mutation, though it doesn't mention reversibility (unmark read) — reasonably complete for a simple state change.

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, zero fluff. First sentence states the purpose, second reveals the behavioral key facts (idempotency and unread count impact). Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is essentially complete. The only gap is not specifying the return value shape (e.g., updated notification, success status), but for a mark-read operation with full schema documentation, the current disclosure is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% — the schema already documents 'id' as the 'Notification UUID to mark as read'. The description adds 'specific notification' but doesn't go beyond the schema's parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting adequately.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Mark a specific notification as read'), explicitly identifies the single parameter, and distinguishes from siblings (notifications_list, notifications_unread_count, notifications_read_all). The 'specific notification' wording clearly separates this from bulk operations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives named. The mention of idempotency and unread count decrement gives some context about behavior, but doesn't tell the agent when to choose this over notifications_read_all or when marking read is appropriate versus leaving unread.

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