mark_notification_read

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

The description labels the tool as a '[mutation]' but does not elaborate on side effects, error handling, or reversibility. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose key behavioral details.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, but the brevity sacrifices necessary details, especially about parameters.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description lacks information on return values, success/error signals, and the role of extraneous parameters. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% description coverage, the tool description does not explain why parameters like 'limit', 'offset', 'filter', and 'type' are present. These appear irrelevant to marking a single notification as read, and the description offers no clarification, potentially confusing the agent.

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 clearly states the action 'mark as read' and specifies it applies to a specific notification, distinguishing it from the sibling 'mark_all_notifications_read' which operates on all 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mark_all_notifications_read' or 'mark_email_read'. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusive usage conditions.

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