notion_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that Notion is restarted, that data is safe because Notion saves continuously, that user confirmation is expected, and that macOS is untested. It omits failure modes and what happens if Notion isn't running.

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: the action and its modes come first, then the safety/confirmation caveat and platform note. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter launcher, this covers purpose, safety, prerequisites, and platform caveats. No output schema exists, but return behavior (e.g., confirmation of restart) is not described.

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 0% for the single parameter, but the description explains both enum meanings in functional terms - debug mode enables the other tools, normal mode restores standard operation. The default of "debug" and the parameter name itself are not mentioned, so a small gap remains.

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?

States specific verbs (start/restart) and the resource (Notion), plus the two modes of operation. It also explains the why - debug mode lets the other tools connect - which distinguishes it from siblings like notion_open or notion_status.

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?

Gives clear context for use (when other tools need to connect) and a prerequisite ("ask the user first"). It does not explicitly contrast with notion_open or notion_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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