notion_comments_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that parent and discussion_id are mutually exclusive, but says nothing about required permissions, comment visibility, or the fact that the created comment cannot be removed via this toolset.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names both modes and then the exclusivity rule. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 write tool with no output schema and a rich nested body (markdown vs richText, attachments, displayName), the description covers only the addressing mode. It says nothing about content requirements, permission preconditions, or what a successful call returns, leaving those gaps to the schema alone.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine semantic constraint the schema cannot express: the schema allows both 'parent' and 'discussionId' to be null, while the description tells the agent exactly one must be supplied. That is real value beyond the structured fields.

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 (comment/reply), the resources involved (page, block, existing discussion) and distinguishes the two operating modes. An agent knows exactly what the tool 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?

The rule 'One or the other, never both' gives explicit guidance on how to choose between the two modes, which is the main branching decision for this tool. It does not cover broader context such as permission requirements or when commenting is preferable to other sibling actions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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