notion_view_designer

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

The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description never discloses that this action may mutate or destroy state. It adds useful routing/scope context about JWT, tenant, and company, but it does not explain side effects, what gets changed, or any consequences of invocation.

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 action name, followed by routing context and a clear Args section. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition, and the structure makes the two parameters easy to scan.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks the core information needed to select or invoke this tool confidently: what view_designer does, when to use it instead of other Notion tools, and what the action expects or returns. For a generic domain-agent wrapper with two opaque parameters, this is insufficient.

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. It provides basic semantics: message is the free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is minimally helpful, but it still leaves the expected content, format, and valid keys for both parameters largely unspecified.

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 `view_designer`', but it never explains what the view_designer action actually does, what it produces, or what problem it solves. This essentially restates the tool name and describes routing mechanics rather than a concrete purpose. An agent would have to guess from the name that this is related to designing Notion views.

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 any of the many sibling tools, such as notion_create_view, notion_update_view, notion_query_view, or notion_chat. The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher but gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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