Insert Blocks

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds meaningful beyond-schema behavior: 'Everything is validated and uploaded before the first write' (validation/atomicity) and 'Existing content is never rewritten.' It also states the return value ('Returns the new block ids'), which is useful since no output schema exists.

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 core purpose and positioning are front-loaded, followed by a dense but content-rich enumeration of markdown/block features. It is a single long paragraph rather than structurally broken up, but nearly every sentence carries specific, actionable detail, so it earns its length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many block types and markdown features), no output schema, and existing annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers positioning, content formats, validation behavior, and return value; only permission prerequisites and parent constraints are left to the schema.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by detailing the markdown parameter's supported syntax (headings, nested lists, callouts, mermaid, equations, tables) and the structured blocks types. It also clarifies the position semantics (start/end/after a specific block id), adding meaning beyond the enum and 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 precise verb and resource ('Insert new content at an exact spot') and enumerates the insertion positions, clearly distinguishing this tool from modification tools. An agent immediately understands this is for adding new blocks, not rewriting existing content.

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 gives clear context — insert at start, end, or after a specific block — but never names or compares to sibling tools like notion_patch_block or notion_replace_text. The statement that 'Existing content is never rewritten' is a behavioral constraint rather than a routing guideline, so usage is only implied.

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