Edit Database Schema

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: delete defaults to a dry run showing affected row counts and snapshots up to 2000 rows' values for notion_undo recovery. It also discloses a hard API limitation (options cannot be renamed or recolored; the API ignores or rejects it), which is genuinely new behavioral context.

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-loaded with the core action and one sentence per action variant, so every clause carries information. It is a dense single paragraph, though, and some clauses (the full option-recolor workaround) run long relative to their marginal selection value.

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 6-action, 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers dry-run defaults, undo/snapshot behavior, per-action parameter intent, and an API constraint. An agent has enough to choose the right action and predict side effects without further research.

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 50% across 10 parameters, and the description adds real meaning by mapping each action to the parameters it consumes (to=rename, property=existing property, definition=add, options=add_options). It does not mention data_source_name or clarify number_format/description handling for the settings actions, leaving minor gaps.

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+resource ('Change a database's properties') and then enumerates every action the tool supports (add, rename, delete, add_options, set_number_format, set_description). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like notion_create_database and notion_update_properties via explicit cross-references.

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 per-action guidance and names concrete alternatives: notion_create_database for the add definition syntax, notion_bulk_update to move rows when changing options, and notion_undo to re-create/restore a deleted property. It even explains when NOT to expect a capability (rename/recolor of options) and prescribes the workaround.

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