Move a page to Notion Trash by exact title match, previewing first unless confirmed with confirm:true. Trashed pages stay restorable for 30 days.
Move the current page to Notion Trash (30 days, restorable). The title must match exactly. Without confirm:true it only previews. Guest workspaces usually disallow this.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page URL or id. Default: the active Notion tab. | |
| title | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| allow_shared | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses reversibility (restorable for 30 days), the two-phase preview/confirm behavior, the exact-title precondition, and a workspace-level permission limit. It leaves the meaning of allow_shared and the permanence implication of confirm:true unexplained.
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?
Four short clauses, no filler, and the primary effect plus reversibility window are front-loaded before the safety-relevant confirm and permission notes.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what happens without confirm, that the action is reversible, and the guest-workspace restriction. It is still silent on what a preview returns and on allow_shared, so it is not fully complete.
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 only 25% (only `page` is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate, and it does for two parameters: exact title matching and the dry-run semantics of confirm. `allow_shared` is left entirely undefined in both schema and description, which keeps this below a 5.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Move the current page to Notion Trash') and characterizes the effect (30 days, restorable), which separates it from notion_delete_blocks and notion_restore_page. It does not explicitly name a sibling for comparison, so it stops 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?
It gives a clear use protocol: call without confirm:true to preview, then confirm to act, plus the prerequisite that the title must match exactly and that guest workspaces usually disallow the operation. It never names notion_delete_blocks as the alternate path for block-level removal, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.