update-database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that fields can be modified and returns database ID and URL. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects (e.g., effect of locking on API writes), or any constraints. This is insufficient 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?

The description is very concise: three sentences covering purpose, modifiable fields, sibling tool distinction, and return value. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, fields, and sibling tool differentiation, and mentions return value. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., how archiving/locking affects operations) and any error or usage notes. This is adequate but not complete.

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% with brief parameter descriptions. The tool description enumerates the fields and adds context about what can be modified, but does not add deeper semantic value beyond the schema. 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 tool updates a Notion database container and lists the modifiable fields (title, description, icon, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool update-data-source for schema updates.

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 explicit guidance: for schema (properties/columns) updates, use update-data-source instead. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus the alternative. However, no other usage context (e.g., prerequisites or limitations) is given.

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