notion_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat them, but it adds useful context about routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose what side effects or destructive behavior the action may have, which is a notable gap given the destructive annotation.

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 organized with a clear Args section. It avoids unnecessary filler, though the opening sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name.

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?

Even with an output schema available, the description leaves the core concept of 'plan_domain_intelligence' unexplained and provides no when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance. An agent facing a large sibling list would struggle to know when this tool is the correct choice.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It defines message as 'Free-text objective for the action' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which adds basic semantics, but it lacks detail about expected input shapes, examples, or how these arguments affect the action.

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 says 'Run the notion domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`,' which mostly restates the tool name without defining what planning domain intelligence actually accomplishes. It adds routing context but not the action's semantic purpose or effect, so an agent still cannot tell what this tool is for.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as notion_chat, notion_query_data, or any of the many sibling *_plan_domain_intelligence tools. The mention of routing through the dispatcher describes mechanics, not usage conditions.

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