Отметить уведомление прочитанным

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

The description clearly states the behavioral effect: changing one notification's read state. This aligns with annotations such as readOnlyHint=false and is not contradictory, but it adds little beyond the basic action and does not cover side effects, return behavior, or idempotency nuances.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to stating the action and scope.

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 status mutation with annotations and a well-documented schema, this description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It could be slightly more complete by noting what the caller should expect after the operation, such as whether the notification disappears from the unread list.

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 notification_id parameter is already documented as coming from notifications_list. The main description only adds the singular scope 'one notification,' which provides minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb (Помечает) and resource (уведомление) with a clear outcome (прочитанным), so the tool's purpose is unambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings like notifications_list by the singular mutation action, though it mostly paraphrases the title without adding additional context.

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 context is implied by the action itself: use this tool when a notification should be marked as read. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, and the only extra pointer is the parameter description saying notification_id comes from notifications_list.

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