Patch One Block

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent), but the description adds meaningful behavior: it snapshots the old content for notion_undo and clarifies that it edits only a single block by id. It does not explain concurrency or error behavior, but it goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and scope, then packs the per-block-type capabilities into one efficient sentence. The third sentence covers the API limitation and undo snapshot. It is dense but well-structured with no obvious filler.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the edit scope, supported operations, the block-type limitation, and the undo-snapshot behavior. It omits details on expected_last_edited_time and error handling, which are relatively minor against the full picture.

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 60%, so the schema already documents some parameters. The description compensates by explaining what many parameters do in context: text supports inline markdown/colors/mentions, checked toggles a to-do, language/caption apply to code blocks, toggleable applies to headings, icon applies to callouts, and cells replace table-row content. It leaves expected_last_edited_time unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit a single block in place by id') and immediately scopes it ('without touching anything else on the page'). The list of supported edits makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like notion_insert_blocks or notion_bulk_update.

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?

Gives a clear when-not condition for block type changes and names the alternative workflow (insert a new block and delete the old one). It does not explicitly route the agent between this tool and siblings like notion_replace_text or notion_bulk_update, but the context is otherwise clear.

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