notion_blocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names 'delete' and 'batch operations' but does not say that delete is an archive (soft delete), that batch operations may be partially failing, whether operations are atomic, what permissions are needed, or that retrieve_block_children paginates. For a 9-action mutating multiplexer this is a substantial 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?

A single short sentence with the scope stated up front and the operation list compactly parenthesized. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for the surface area it fronts.

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?

The tool is a large action-discriminated union with nine branches, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits action-selection guidance, batch semantics, return behavior, and the soft-delete behavior of delete_block, leaving critical context undocumented despite the rich parameter schema.

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 100% and the per-action const descriptions ('Use this action to append children to a block') already explain each branch, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's parenthetical action list maps onto the action enum but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it.

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 the resource (blocks) and enumerates the operations the tool performs (retrieve, update, delete, append children, batch). This distinguishes it from the notion_pages/notion_database siblings by resource scope, though the framing 'various block operations' is slightly loose rather than a single specific verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus notion_pages, nor on when to choose single-operation actions over the batch_* variants, nor on the difference between retrieve_block and retrieve_block_children. The per-action schema descriptions carry all the routing logic; the tool description itself provides none.

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