append_blocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that a list of created blocks is returned, but does not disclose permission requirements, append limits, idempotency, atomicity, or how the operation affects existing page content. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with purpose and followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. The block-type list is long but justified given the zero schema description coverage; only the Returns line is arguably redundant because an output schema exists.

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 a has-output-schema tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description supplies enough parameter detail to invoke the tool correctly. Its main completeness gap is the lack of routing guidance versus append_markdown and the absence of behavioral context such as permissions or limits.

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 0%, and the description compensates thoroughly for all three parameters. It explains page_id, after_block_id, and provides a detailed enumeration of block types with required fields for each type, which is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs to construct valid calls.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Append blocks to a Notion page.' This is clear and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool append_markdown, which also appends content to a page, leaving the agent to infer the difference between structured blocks and markdown.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives such as append_markdown. It only lists parameters and return value, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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