Update Block

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

The description adds that the update 'replaces the entire value for a given field,' which aligns with the idempotentHint=true annotation. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects like authorization requirements or error scenarios. Given that annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description provides marginal added value.

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 two sentences with no extra words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second elaborates on the behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no output schema. The description covers block_id format, block type matching, and format selection guidance. However, it does not mention the return value (likely the updated block) or possible error conditions when the block type does not match. Adequate for a simple update tool but could be more comprehensive.

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 100% but the block parameter is only minimally described in the schema (empty properties). The description adds that the block object must match the block's type schema, which provides necessary guidance. The format parameter includes detailed usage instructions for markdown vs json. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 ('update'), the resource ('content of a block in Notion'), and the mechanism ('based on its type', 'replaces the entire value'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notion_append_block_children (which appends) and notion_delete_block (which deletes).

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notion_update_page_properties or notion_update_content. It only implies usage for block content updates, but lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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