notion_update_comment

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: writes are gated by Spring-verified 'effect' claims, write resumption requires an 'approval_ref', and 'idempotency_key' provides stable business-action identity. It does not describe the concrete destructive scope, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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, front-loads the operation identity, and presents parameters as a scannable bullet list. The routing sentence is somewhat boilerplate but not redundant enough to hurt readability.

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 output schema and annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety metadata. It is still incomplete as a callable-tool explanation because it omits the actual Notion update semantics, the expected shape of the 'arguments' JSON, and how to distinguish this from other comment operations.

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 parameter meaning, and it does provide one-line semantics for project_id, project_ref, connector_account_ref, idempotency_key, effect, and approval_ref. However, the operation-specific 'arguments' parameter is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is nearly tautological and does not tell the agent what Notion comment payload keys are expected.

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 identifies the operation as 'Notion connector operation update_comment' and maps it to platform tool 'notion.update_comment', but it never explicitly states what updating a comment does or what Notion-level effect is produced. It relies on the tool name to convey the verb+resource, so the purpose is clear only by inference rather than by stated semantics.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use update_comment versus sibling tools like notion_create_comment, notion_delete_comment, or notion_get_comment. The only contextual note, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority', is an access-routing constraint, not a usage-selection rule.

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