Update a Notion database row

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: properties are validated against the database's own columns and refused by name rather than coerced; unnamed columns keep their values; the row is read back from Notion; trash requires a preview and confirm:true and is restorable. These details go well beyond readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 dense and front-loaded, with every sentence carrying useful information. However, the long compound structure and multiple clauses make it slightly harder to scan than a cleaner bulleted or shorter form would be.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers how to identify the row, how properties are interpreted, validation behavior, partial-update semantics, and trash/restore confirmation. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 100%, but the description still adds meaningful semantics: properties is keyed by column name and supports specific value forms including null-to-clear and multi-select replacement; trash:true is restorable and needs confirm:true, while confirm is unnecessary for other changes. This materially supplements the generic schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Change properties'), resource ('ONE row of a Notion database'), and scope ('pageId from query_notion_database'). It gives a concrete example and clearly distinguishes updating an existing row from querying or creating.

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 tells the agent to get pageId from query_notion_database and explains that only named columns are changed, which provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as append_to_notion_page or save_to_notion, so it falls short of a 5.

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