Update a Notion page's body with Markdown: replace the whole content or edit parts via search-and-replace. Read the page first if you intend to edit rather than overwrite.
Replace a page's content with Markdown, which Notion parses into blocks. This replaces the whole body, so read it first if you mean to edit rather than overwrite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The new content. | |
| pageId | Yes | The ID of the page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true but omit destructiveHint, so the description's warning that it 'replaces the whole body' and destroys existing content carries real behavioral weight beyond the structured fields. It does not cover the async 202 path or the allowDeletingContent guard, both of which remain only in the schema.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded before the read-first advice. Every clause earns its place.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the core risk (whole-body overwrite) and parsing behavior. It would be stronger if it acknowledged the non-replace operations and async responses that the schema supports.
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 description coverage is 100% and the nested body definitions are thoroughly documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail for pageId or body beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Replace') and resource ('a page's content with Markdown') and immediately explains the Markdown-to-blocks translation, which is the defining trait versus the generic notion_pages_update sibling. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?
Gives conditional advice ('read it first if you mean to edit rather than overwrite') that tells the agent when not to use it blindly. It does not name a sibling alternative or mention the partial-edit operations (update_content, insert_content) the schema exposes, so the routing guidance is incomplete but present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.