Отметить уведомления прочитанными

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether marking read is reversible, whether it fires events/webhooks, or what happens to notifications outside the given case. It largely restates parameter mechanics.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the primary selection mechanism (ids or all=true) is front-loaded ahead of the case qualifier. It is efficient, though criticism here is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers argument usage but omits the core action, side effects, and post-call behavior an agent would want before mutating notification state. It is the minimum viable level given the title fills in the purpose.

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 only 33% – 'all' and 'ids' have no schema descriptions at all, and only 'case' is documented in-schema. The description compensates partly by presenting ids-or-all as the selection mechanism and explaining that 'case' narrows mass marking to one case, but it does not clarify mutual exclusivity, that ids are UUIDs, or the minimum-one-item rule.

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 never states the action itself; it only instructs how to pass arguments ('Укажите ids или all=true'). The verb+resource is recoverable from the title ('Отметить уведомления прочитанными') and by inference from the param names, but the description alone gives a vague purpose and does not distinguish this from siblings like notifications_list, notifications_summary, or dialogs_mark_read.

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?

It explains argument mechanics (ids vs all=true, case scoping) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing against alternatives such as notifications_summary or dialogs_mark_read. The two modes are implied rather than framed as alternatives.

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