Update Page Properties

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world); the description adds substantial behavior the annotations do not: forgiving name/option matching, full-schema validation before writing, aggregated error reporting, and a saved snapshot enabling notion_undo. These are exactly the mutation-time facts an agent needs.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and value formats, then validation guarantees, then side effects and preview. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations verbatim.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers value encoding, validation timing, error aggregation, undo support, and preview mode. An agent can call this correctly without further context.

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 schema coverage at 80%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it defines how each value type maps to property kinds (arrays for multi-select/people/relations, ISO dates or {start,end}, null to clear) and explains what dry_run actually previews. The remaining params (allow_new_options, expected_last_edited_time) are already documented in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Set properties on a database row') and enumerates accepted value types, so the agent knows exactly what is being written. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like notion_update_page or notion_bulk_update, so a routing agent still has to infer which one to pick.

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 tells the agent to use dry_run to preview, and that paths through validation happen before any write, which implies a cautious first-call workflow. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over notion_update_page, notion_bulk_update, or notion_patch_block, nor any prerequisite like fetching the schema first.

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