plan_update_range

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses mutation, concurrency via etag, and error on missing spec. However, it does not explain how the update merges or replaces content, nor any side effects or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey core purpose and key usage tips. Could be slightly improved with bullet points or clearer separation of requirements, but overall no wasted words.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (10 params, no output schema), description omits many parameter semantics, return value, and error patterns beyond the missing spec case. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 0%, but description only explains about half of the 10 parameters (section, start_line, end_line, expected_etag). Missing details on service, new_markdown, title, dry_run, page_id, and occurrence.

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 clearly states it performs a 'surgical update' by section or line range, distinguishing it from full-replace operations. However, it could be more explicit in differentiating from sibling tools like plan_upsert.

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?

Provides specific guidance: prefer section over lines, pass expected_etag from plan_get, errors if no spec given. Prerequisites (plan_configure, NOTION_TOKEN) are listed. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives.

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