notion_update_task

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

Beyond the annotations (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses a key behavioral trait: updates are partial, not full overwrites. It also states the return type. It does not mention error behavior or permissions, but the annotations and schema already cover the safety profile.

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 compact and logically arranged: purpose first, then argument list, then return value. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant text.

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 description, combined with the schema and annotations, gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly: what it does, which fields to update, how to obtain the ID, and what it returns. It does not explicitly address alternatives like notion_update_appointment, but the tool name and resource phrasing make the distinction clear.

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 description names the updatable fields and adds the crucial source instruction 'from notion_get_tasks' for notion_id. The schema documents each parameter's meaning and allowed status values, so the description adds value without needing to repeat every detail.

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 the action ('Update fields on an existing Notion task') and the resource ('Notion task'), distinguishing it from the sibling appointment tools. The added sentence 'Only provided fields change' precisely defines the operation's scope.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to update an existing Notion task, and the notion_id should come from notion_get_tasks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the resource type is unambiguous given the sibling set.

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