Notion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Update a database' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when only partial parameters are provided. The description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits needed for an agent to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is simple but lacks the front-loaded essential information that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose and usage context.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating a database' entails, what fields can be modified, what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from other update operations in the sibling tool set. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, provide examples of valid values, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but doesn't detract either.

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 'Notion | Update a database' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'API-update-a-database' with minimal added value. It specifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'database' but lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated or how it differs from sibling tools like 'API-patch-block-children' or 'API-update-a-block'. The description doesn't provide meaningful differentiation from related operations.

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 provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that modify Notion content (API-patch-block-children, API-patch-page, API-update-a-block), but the description offers no context about when this specific database update tool is appropriate versus those other modification tools. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison information is included.

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