systemprompt_create_notion_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'expands upon basic user inputs' and generates 'detailed, well-structured' content, but lacks critical behavioral details: permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality without wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with elaboration. Minor room for improvement in tightening phrasing.

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?

Given this is a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error handling, response format, or important behavioral constraints like authentication needs. For a tool that creates content in an external system, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by explaining that userInstructions are 'expanded into a comprehensive structure,' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool creates a Notion page with specific characteristics: 'Creates a rich, comprehensive Notion page that expands upon basic user inputs.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_notion_page (read) and update_notion_page (modify) by emphasizing creation and content expansion.

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 description implies usage when needing to create detailed pages from simple inputs, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like update_notion_page or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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