notifications_mark_read

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the idempotency sentence is partly redundant, but it clarifies that re-marking produces no error. The description also discloses a side effect absent from annotations: the unread count decrements by one, which is genuinely useful state-change context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then behavior, then side effect. Every sentence adds something, though the idempotency line partly duplicates the idempotentHint annotation.

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 one-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the idempotent failure mode, and the observable side effect. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as a Notification UUID, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only 'a specific notification', which restates rather than enriches the parameter.

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 verb and resource ('Mark a specific notification as read'), and the word 'specific' implicitly contrasts with the sibling notifications_read_all and spv_documents_mark_read. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the single-object framing, but the description never says when to prefer this over notifications_read_all or why an agent would pick one notification at a time. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer the choice from sibling names.

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