notion_update_page

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the mutation scope and the mandatory file-path worklow, which is valuable. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether existing properties are overwritten, whether archiving is reversible, or what happens on failure.

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 short, purposeful sentences with no fluff. The critical operational constraint is front-loaded, and the function statement follows immediately. An agent can parse the must-do action and the tool scope in one pass.

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 moderately complex mutation tool with all parameters documented in the schema, this description covers the essential file-based invocation worklow and the accepted update payload. The 'extract' parameter description already handles response-field expectations, so the absence of an output schema is not a significant omission. Lack of sibling routing is a minor gap but was already reflected in usage_guidelines.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaningful value by requiring a preliminary write of the JSON payload to a file and by reinforcing that the JSON should contain 'properties', 'archived', 'icon', or 'cover'. This clarifies the expected usage without merely restating the schema's 'Path to file' phrasing.

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 uses a concrete verb 'Updates' and specifies the resource: page properties, archive status, icon, or cover. This clearly identifies it as a page-mutation tool and distinguishes it from the block/database siblings in intent, though it does not explicitly nod to any sibling alternative.

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 'IMPORTANT: You MUST write the JSON payload to a file first' instruction provides strong operational guidance on how to invoke the tool, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like notion_update_block or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by 'Updates page properties...' rather than explicitly articulated.

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