notion_pages_update

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description usefully adds partial-update semantics (unnamed properties untouched, null clears a value). However, it omits the destructive `eraseContent` behavior (deletes every block on the page) and the `isArchived`/`isLocked` nuances, which matter a lot for a write tool with no annotation detail beyond the read-only flag.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the partial-update rule, then the routing exclusion. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 large, deeply nested mutation schema with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the headline operations and the move exclusion, but leaves out destructive behaviors (`eraseContent`), the template/lock fields, and the `filterProperties` return-shaping parameter. An agent can call it, but not without risking unintended destruction.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in depth. The description reinforces the properties-clearing semantics ('a value set to null is cleared'), which the schema also states, and says nothing about `filterProperties`, so it adds little beyond structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (update) and resource (page) plus the exact facets it can change (properties, icon, cover, trash state). It also explicitly carves out what it does NOT do and names the sibling (`pages_move`) that handles it, so an agent can distinguish it from related tools 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 a clear exclusion: it cannot move a page, so use `pages_move` instead. It also implies the partial-update use case by saying unnamed properties are left alone. It does not, however, contrast with `notion_pages_create` or say when a caller should prefer this over other page operations, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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