notion_create_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the permission requirement ('insert comment' capabilities) and the mutual exclusivity rule for parent/discussion_id. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., notifications sent), rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (since there's no output schema). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly front-loaded and efficient: two sentences that cover purpose, prerequisites, and key usage constraint. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. While it covers purpose, prerequisites, and a key parameter constraint well, it lacks information about the response format, error handling, and other behavioral aspects. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a creation tool, more context about what happens after invocation would be valuable.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by clarifying the parent/discussion_id exclusivity rule, which isn't captured in the schema. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions (e.g., explaining when to choose parent vs discussion_id). Given the high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Create a comment in Notion') and resource ('comment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notion_retrieve_comments (which reads comments) and other creation tools (which create pages, databases, etc.). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Create a comment in Notion') and provides crucial exclusion guidance: 'You can either specify a page parent or a discussion_id, but not both.' It also mentions a prerequisite: 'This requires the integration to have 'insert comment' capabilities.' This gives clear context for when and how to invoke the tool versus alternatives.

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