notifications_read_all

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it resets the unread count to zero and clarifies that all notifications are affected in a single operation. It does not detail side effects or error conditions, but it complements the annotations well.

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 with no wasted language. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the user-visible effect and idempotency guarantee.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool, the description is complete enough: it identifies the action, scope, effect on unread count, and idempotency. No output schema exists, and the annotations already cover the safety profile, so no critical agent-facing detail 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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics receive the baseline score of 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details for a no-argument tool.

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: marking all notifications as read for the authenticated user in one operation. It clearly implies a bulk action but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling notifications_mark_read, which likely handles individual notifications.

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 phrase 'Mark all' and 'in a single operation' implies when to use this bulk tool, but there is no explicit guidance contrasting it with notifications_mark_read or notifications_unread_count. An agent can infer usage, but the alternative is left unstated.

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