notion_update_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update a database' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified properties. For a complex mutation tool with 5 parameters, 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 extremely concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. For a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, this brevity is appropriate.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails, what fields can be modified, how partial updates work, or what the response contains. The rich schema documentation helps, but the description should provide higher-level context about the update operation's scope and behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 'Update a database in Notion' states the basic action (update) and resource (database), but is vague about what specifically can be updated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like notion_update_page_properties or notion_update_block, which also perform updates on different resources. The description lacks specificity about scope or fields.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing database ID), comparison to sibling tools like notion_create_database or notion_retrieve_database, or any context about when this update operation is appropriate versus other update tools in the Notion suite.

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