notion_create_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool behaves differently depending on which ID is provided (parent_page_id vs database_id), and it details that content supports markdown elements like headings, lists, quotes, code blocks, and inline formatting. While it does not mention permissions or rate limits, the main creation behavior is well-covered for a non-destructive write operation.

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 efficiently structured with a lead sentence, two usage lines, and a clean parameter list. It is longer than minimal, but given 6 parameters and two modes, every line earns its place. The purpose is front-loaded, and the list format improves readability.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (so return values are presumably covered elsewhere). The description covers all parameters and the key mode distinction, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It does not explain error scenarios, but that is not required for completeness here.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It explains every parameter: title, content, parent_page_id, database_id, properties_json, and icon. It also clarifies the format of properties_json as 'keys are property names, values are Notion API property value objects' and gives an example for icon. This is excellent compensation for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new Notion page with optional markdown content.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like notion_create_database and notion_update_page by focusing on page creation, and it further specifies two distinct modes (standalone page under another page vs database row). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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: 'For a standalone page under another page, provide parent_page_id. For a database row, provide database_id and properties_json.' It effectively explains the two main use cases, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Still, the mode distinction gives actionable guidelines.

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