notion_add_data_source

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this mutates an existing database and that a title property is mandatory in the schema, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the added data source can be removed later, or rate limits. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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?

Opens with the action and the disambiguating fact, then presents parameters in an aligned block. Every line carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and a declared output schema, the description covers purpose, sibling routing, and all parameter meanings. Only the operational envelope (permissions, reversibility) is absent, which is a minor gap given the additive, low-risk nature of the operation.

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 0%, and the description compensates by documenting all three parameters, including the non-obvious constraint that schema_json must contain a title property and the format pointer to notion_create_database. The schema_json format itself is only described by analogy, leaving some inference.

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 and resource ('Add another data source ... to an existing database') and immediately defines the concept as 'a second table with its own schema'. It also distinguishes itself from every sibling database tool by noting they operate on a database's FIRST data source.

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 line 'Most databases have one; the other database tools here operate on a database's FIRST data source' gives a clear condition that selects this tool over notion_update_database or notion_describe_database. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this if...' exclusion, but the routing signal is strong.

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