notion_insert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that existing blocks are never modified and that the operation rolls back if any existing block disappears, which tells the agent the insert is atomic and safe against partial writes. It omits permissions/auth requirements and what the response returns, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the capability and its supported surface come first, followed by the behavioral constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally say what comes back (e.g. created block ids), and it says nothing about required permissions. Still, for a 4-parameter insert tool with 75% schema coverage, the description covers capability, accepted syntax, and atomicity well enough to call it correctly.

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 75% and already documents page, after, and position (including the after-vs-position precedence). The description compensates for the undocumented 'markdown' parameter by enumerating exactly which Markdown constructs are accepted, including fenced mermaid code, which is genuinely useful syntax guidance beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Insert Markdown as new blocks') and enumerates the block types it can produce, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It implicitly separates itself from editing tools with 'Never edits existing blocks', but it never names a sibling tool it competes with, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'Never edits existing blocks' functions as a when-not hint, and the verb 'insert' implies the when. However, no alternative is named (e.g. notion_read or notion_outline for inspecting content first), and there is no statement of prerequisites such as page access. Usage is only implied.

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