update_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists what can be updated but does not reveal side effects, permission requirements, whether updates are additive or replacing, or how partial updates behave. For a mutation tool, this lack of detail leaves significant unknowns.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action and resource. It covers the essential scope without any filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested 'properties' object, partial updates) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the structure of property updates, potential impacts on existing data, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description summarizes the key parameters ('title, description, or property schema') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema gives per-parameter descriptions, so the description's contribution is minimal.

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 specific verb 'Update' and a clear resource 'Notion database' with explicit attributes (title, description, property schema). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_page, which updates page content, and create_database, which creates new databases.

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 clearly sets the context: this tool is for updating database-level metadata and schema. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is evident from the resource focus (database vs. page). Sibling names (update_page, create_database) further imply the boundaries, though no direct exclusions are stated.

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