notion_okr_progress

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

The description discloses that the action executes under JWT, tenant, and company scope and routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which adds useful contextual behavior. The destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations already convey mutation and side-effect traits, and the description does not contradict them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by routing context and parameter explanations. No filler sentences are present, though the routing sentence is slightly generic boilerplate.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool is a simple wrapper with only two explained parameters, the description reaches minimum viability. It still misses an explicit statement of what the okr_progress action accomplishes or when an agent should select it over other notion tools.

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 schema provides only type and default values with 0% description coverage, so the Args section adds some meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, the description does not explain the expected structure of the JSON inputs or provide examples, leaving the parameter semantics only partially specified.

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 action: 'Run the notion domain agent action `okr_progress`', which identifies a specific verb and resource. It adds routing context and distinguishes this from generic dispatch tools by naming the exact domain-agent action. However, it does not explain what 'okr_progress' actually does, leaving some semantic ambiguity despite the self-explanatory name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternative notion_* or dispatch_domain_agent tools. The description only describes the routing mechanism and scope, not the intended use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.

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