replace_content

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It details atomicity, block ID preservation for matched blocks, warning codes for unmatched blocks, elements not preserved, bookmark/embed behavior, and references docs for syntax and warnings. No contradictions.

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?

Long but well-structured, front-loaded with primary action, then details preservation, exceptions, workarounds, and warnings. Every sentence adds value for a complex tool.

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?

Very complete: covers atomic behavior, unmatched blocks, dropped elements, bookmark loss, and references external docs. Addresses almost all likely questions a developer would have about this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the effect of the markdown parameter on block IDs and preservation, and implicitly covers the page_id context. Dry_run not elaborated, but overall adds meaningful parameter context.

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 it replaces all page content with provided markdown atomically, using the verb 'replaces' and specifying the resource 'page content'. It distinguishes from siblings like append_content and update_page by emphasizing atomic replacement and specific preservation behavior.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use: includes workarounds for unsupported elements (child_page, synced_block, etc.) by recommending duplicate_page or Notion UI. Also mentions alternatives and resources for further details.

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