Log Project Decision

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'Risk: safe_write', clarifying the write is safe but doesn't elaborate on side effects, like which Notion page is updated or whether existing content is modified. Adds some context beyond annotations but could be more thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, which Notion page the decision is logged to, or how the parameters should be used. This lacks completeness for an agent to use it reliably.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it only covers the 'category' parameter implicitly via listing categories. It does not describe 'projectName', 'decisionTitle', 'decisionDetails', or 'requestingAgent', leaving their semantics unclear. This is a significant gap.

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 'log' and the resource 'decision to Notion', listing specific categories (architecture, product, business, security, implementation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notion_create_page or codex_generate_prompt, which have different purposes.

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 when a decision needs to be recorded, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. Given siblings include other Notion tools (append, create, get, search), the lack of exclusion criteria limits guidance.

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