Update Page

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that changes are reversible via notion_undo and that an uploaded icon/cover file is re-uploaded on undo. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens to unspecified fields, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then value-format details, then sibling routing and undo behavior. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema and 8 parameters at low coverage, the description would need to carry more. It handles the icon/cover/move semantics well but leaves data_source_name and expected_last_edited_time unexplained, so an agent cannot fully infer correct invocation for those fields.

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 only 25% of 8 parameters, so the description has to compensate. It does clarify icon/cover value formats and the 'none' sentinel that removes either, but title, locked, data_source_name, and expected_last_edited_time (notably a concurrency guard) get no explanation in either place.

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 opens with a precise verb plus resource and enumerates the exact operations available (title/icon/cover, lock/unlock, move under a page or into a database). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from notion_update_properties for database row fields, so an agent can separate the two siblings without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative for a specific case ('For database row fields use notion_update_properties') and points at notion_undo for reverting, which gives clear routing. It stops short of covering other near siblings (notion_create_page, notion_patch_block) or stating exclusions for arbitrary block content.

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