notifications_mark_all_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the state change ('clears... unread set'), the response shape ('answers how many rows moved'), and the authorization rule ('forbidden otherwise'). It could additionally address reversibility, but the disclosed scope and return behavior are substantive.

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 compact sentences carry purpose, scope, response, and an auth constraint with minimal waste. The German prefix partially duplicates the English explanation but functions as a recognizable label. Well front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Covers the essential facts: bulk effect, row-count response, and self-scoping constraint. Missing for a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations: what workspaceId scopes, idempotency semantics, and whether the clear is reversible. Adequate but with identifiable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds critical meaning for userId ('must be the caller's own, forbidden otherwise') but says nothing about workspaceId or idempotencyKey; the latter two are left to name inference. Partial but meaningful compensation for the most security-relevant 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?

Names a specific verb+resource combination: 'clears the caller's whole unread set in one call.' The phrase 'whole unread set' distinguishes it from single-notification siblings like notifications_mark_read, and the German label 'Alle als gelesen markieren' reinforces the bulk scope.

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?

Provides clear context that this is the bulk operation ('whole unread set in one call'), which implicitly contrasts with the single-item alternative notifications_mark_read among the siblings. It also states the structural constraint that userId must be the caller's own. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when-not-to-use.

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