systemprompt_update_notion_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavioral traits. It mentions 'preserving existing information' and 'maintaining page integrity,' which suggests non-destructive updates, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the pageId is invalid. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the transformation process, and the third clarifies the scope of changes. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, updated page data), error handling, or important behavioral constraints. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (pageId and userInstructions). The description adds some context about transforming 'simple inputs' into 'well-structured, detailed content,' but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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 'updates an existing Notion page with rich, comprehensive content based on user instructions' and distinguishes it from siblings like create_notion_page and delete_notion_page by focusing on modifying existing content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_notion_page or search tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 for enhancing, reorganizing, or expanding existing Notion page content, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_notion_page for new pages or get_notion_page for reading. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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