notion_okr_progress

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

The description mentions routing through the platform's dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some insight into authentication and scoping. However, it does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutates data, rate limits, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description fails to adequately convey behavioral traits.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the action name. It avoids fluff, but the brevity compromises completeness. The structure is clear, and each sentence adds relevant information about routing and parameters.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description is incomplete for a tool that runs a domain action. It fails to explain what the action does, how the parameters relate to OKR progress, or what kind of response to expect. The agent would need additional context to use this tool 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It describes `message` as 'free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds some meaning beyond the schema's default/title fields. However, it lacks details on what the `inputs` JSON should contain, constraints, or examples, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 states the tool runs a notion domain agent action called `okr_progress`, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explain what `okr_progress` actually does (e.g., update OKRs, query progress, etc.), leaving the purpose somewhat vague. It is not a tautology but lacks concrete functional details.

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 like notion_chat or notion_create_page. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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