Easy Notion MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a database ID). The list of supported property types adds some context but doesn't fully describe the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and location, followed by a useful list of supported types. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the list for readability).

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 the complexity (a creation tool with 3 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter context but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, output) and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to use effectively.

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 all three parameters (title, parent_page_id, schema). The description adds value by listing supported property types (e.g., 'text', 'number'), which clarifies the 'type' field in the schema array, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema implies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a database') and the location ('under a parent page'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_page' or 'get_database'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'add_database_entries'), though the verb 'Create' implies initial creation rather than adding to existing ones.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a parent page), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'create_page' or 'list_databases', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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