Notion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but there's no mention of permissions required, whether changes are partial or complete, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are omitted. The description doesn't address rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a successful update.

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 description is extremely concise at just three words ('Notion | Update a database'), front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Notion' for context, 'Update' for action, 'a database' for resource) earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or the scope of changes. For a database update operation with rich text objects and property schemas, more contextual guidance would be helpful for an AI agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter documentation in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a database') with platform context ('Notion'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'API-patch-page' or 'API-update-a-block', but the specificity of 'database' versus 'page' or 'block' provides implicit distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing database_id), comparison to sibling tools like 'API-retrieve-a-database' for read operations or 'API-create-a-database' for creation, or any context about when this update operation is appropriate versus other modification tools.

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