replace_content

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: atomic operation, preservation of block IDs for matched blocks, new IDs for unmatched blocks, loss of certain elements like child_page, warnings for unmatched_blocks and bookmark_lost_on_atomic_replace, and return format.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: starts with core action, then limitations, then warnings, then references, then return. Every sentence adds unique value. Length appropriate for complexity.

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 no output schema, the description includes return structure, warnings, and references to external docs. Covers input params, behavioral nuances, and edge cases comprehensively. No gaps.

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. Description adds behavioral context beyond schema (e.g., atomicity, preservation, warnings), enriching understanding of how parameters affect the operation. Not a full 5 because it doesn't add constraints or format details beyond schema.

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 replaces all page content with markdown atomically, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'append_content' (appends) and 'update_page' (partial updates) by emphasizing atomic replacement of entire content.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (replace entire content atomically) and when not to (if source has child_page, synced_block, etc., suggests using duplicate_page first or Notion UI). Provides clear alternatives and context.

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