Easy Notion MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'restore' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., restoring page visibility), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies system state.

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 with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Restore an archived page'), making it immediately scannable and easy to parse. No extraneous details or repetitive phrasing are present.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what 'restore' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'page_id' documented as 'Page ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter (e.g., where to find the ID, format requirements, or validation rules). This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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The description clearly states the verb ('restore') and resource ('an archived page'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'archive_page' by indicating the opposite operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'restore' means in this context (e.g., returning to active status vs. unarchiving).

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., the page must be archived), exclusions (e.g., cannot restore deleted pages), or related tools like 'archive_page' for the opposite operation. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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