notion_update_block

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

The file-first workflow requirement is a genuinely valuable non-obvious behavioral disclosure, emphasized with 'IMPORTANT' and 'MUST,' which prevents a likely failure mode. However, with zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose update semantics (merge vs. replace), effects on existing block content, or response behavior — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with the critical constraint front-loaded and zero wasted words. The structure is efficient, though the purpose clause is so terse that the description under-uses its available space for behavioral context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin: it covers the biggest gotcha (file requirement) but omits update semantics, expected payload shape, and selection context. An agent could invoke the tool correctly but cannot predict its behavior or side effects with confidence.

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% — all three parameters (extract, block_id, file_path) already carry descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the file_path workflow and its mandatory status but adds no new semantic meaning about any parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states 'Updates a block,' which gives a clear verb and resource, but this essentially restates the tool name (notion_update_block) without specifying what aspects of a block can be updated (content, properties, archived status, etc.). It differentiates from sibling read/delete tools only through the naming convention itself, not through descriptive content.

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 a procedural constraint ('You MUST write the JSON payload to a file first') but no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like notion_update_page, notion_append_block_children, or notion_delete_block. There are no when/when-not statements or conditions directing tool selection.

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