create_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the schema-matching requirement, which is a useful constraint, but does not detail other behaviors such as what happens with invalid parents, required fields for sub-pages, or the response format. This is adequate but not rich in transparency.

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 concise sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a key constraint without any redundant words or repetition of schema information.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and the critical database-schema constraint. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when to use it and what to provide. A minor gap is not describing the return value or error scenarios, but those are often not required for basic creation tools.

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 input schema describes each parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small semantic layer by noting that properties must match the database schema, which reinforces the properties parameter's meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on icon, cover, or children beyond what the schema already says.

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 creates a new Notion page and specifies two distinct parent contexts (database or sub-page). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_page or archive_page, which operate on existing pages.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (creating a new page) and gives a specific constraint (properties must match the database schema for database pages). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a creation tool.

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