notion_add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that text is sent as native API markdown, supporting inline formatting, equations, and @mentions, and explains the behavior of discussion_id (turns the comment into a reply). It doesn't mention permissions or errors, but given the output schema exists, return values are covered.

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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The parameter list is clear and each line earns its place, including the practical pointer to notion_get_comments. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description is complete: purpose, all parameter semantics, and a helpful cross-reference to a sibling tool. The presence of an output schema covers return values. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter explicitly: page_id (the page to comment on), text (with markdown details), and discussion_id (reply semantics). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 tool's action: 'Add a comment to a Notion page or reply to a discussion thread.' It specifies the verb (add) and resource (page or discussion thread), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like notion_update_comment and notion_delete_comment by focusing on creation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to add a new comment or reply to an existing discussion thread. It also points to a sibling tool (notion_get_comments) for obtaining discussion IDs, which is useful. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple create operation.

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