notion_insert_page_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the parsing engine, the precedence rule ('position ... ignored when after is given'), and the anchor format, but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, failure behavior when the anchor text is missing or ambiguous, or size limits.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence, then a differentiation sentence, then a tight per-parameter block that earns its space given zero schema coverage. The parameter names are repeated from the schema, but that repetition carries the missing documentation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the invocation path (read markdown, copy anchor, insert) is complete. The remaining gap is error/precondition handling for a malformed or unmatched 'after' anchor on a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, yet the description documents all four parameters with real semantics: position's default and valid values, its override by 'after', and a precise encoding for the 'after' anchor ('start text...end text' joined by three dots, copied from the read tool). This fully compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Insert markdown into a page') plus the mechanism ('using Notion's own markdown parser') and the three positioning modes. It explicitly contrasts itself with notion_append_content, so an agent can distinguish the two without reading schemas.

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?

Names the alternative (notion_append_content) and the condition that selects this tool instead: Notion-specific markup support and text-anchored insertion. It also tells the agent where to source the 'after' value (notion_read_page_markdown), closing the retrieval-to-insertion loop.

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