notion_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not state that two of the three actions are mutating, that comments cannot be edited or deleted through this tool, what permission level is required, or whether posting notifies users — all material facts for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing. For a three-action union tool this is too thin to be considered appropriately sized.

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 discriminated union of three actions with a deep nested rich_text schema, no annotations and no output schema. The description supplies none of the connective context an agent needs — action selection, return shape, pagination behavior for get_comments, or how to obtain a discussion_id — so it is well short of adequate for this complexity.

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 schema is unusually detailed, including per-action descriptions for block_id, page_id, discussion_id and the rich_text union. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema, not the description, is doing all the work.

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 (comments) and enumerates the three concrete operations: get, add to page, add to discussion. That distinguishes it from the sibling tools (notion_pages, notion_blocks, notion_database, notion_users), though 'various' adds vagueness and the action naming in the description does not exactly match the schema's action constants.

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 the sibling tools, nor on how to choose between the three actions. It also omits prerequisites the agent would need, such as where a discussion_id comes from and whether reading comments requires different access than posting them.

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