add_content_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly indicates a mutation ('Add') but does not describe permissions, error handling, idempotency, partial failure, or that position currently supports only 'append' (which is only in the schema). This lack of detail is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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, efficient sentence that starts with the action verb and specifies the target and resource. No filler words, making it appropriately sized and immediately scannable.

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?

While the schema is rich and covers parameters thoroughly, the absence of annotations and an output schema means the description should compensate by explaining behavioral expectations, return values, or limitations. The description only states the basic action, so an agent may not know what to expect after invocation or what constraints apply (e.g., append-only).

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including the structure of blocks, page_id, and position. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that blocks are 'formatted' and the page must be 'existing', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add') and a clear resource ('formatted content blocks to an existing Notion page'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_page (which creates a new page) and get_page_content (which reads content).

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 implies usage: you have an existing page and want to add content blocks to it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like update_page or create_rich_page, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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