notion_weekly_status_report

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description never discloses what side effects occur or what gets created, modified, or destroyed. It adds only the auth/scope routing detail (JWT, tenant, company scope), which is useful but generic platform boilerplate. With a destructive operation involved, the description should warn about consequences; it does not.

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: two prose sentences plus a two-line args list with no filler. The action name is front-loaded and the parameter notes are clearly separated. Every sentence earns its place, though the routing sentence is boilerplate shared across many similar tools.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description lacks the domain semantics an agent needs: what the weekly status report covers, which Notion resources it touches, and why it is flagged destructive and non-idempotent. For a domain-agent dispatch tool with two free-form parameters, this is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It provides minimal labels ('Free-text objective', 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs') that are better than nothing but do not specify what a weekly status report objective should contain or what keys the structured inputs JSON accepts. The 0% coverage gap is only partially compensated.

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 only says 'Run the notion domain agent action weekly_status_report' and describes the routing mechanism, which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what a weekly status report is or produces. It does not differentiate from the dozens of sibling notion_* tools such as notion_sprint_plan or notion_okr_progress. The verb+resource framing gives it only marginal clarity above a pure tautology.

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 on when to call this tool versus the generic dispatch_domain_agent sibling or other notion domain-agent actions. The only contextual hint is that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which explains the mechanism but not the selection criteria. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.

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