notion_update_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that block_type can be omitted and the block is fetched to detect it, and that content supports inline markdown. However, it does not clarify whether content fully replaces existing text, whether other block properties are preserved, or any permission requirements. This is partial transparency but lacks depth for a mutating tool.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the primary action. The parameter list is clearly formatted and avoids unnecessary fluff. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes useful information, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 an output schema exists and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and a key behavioral option (auto-detecting block type). It lacks details on error cases or explicit confirmation that content replaces existing text, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. A 4 is appropriate.

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 must compensate. It does so excellently: block_id is anchored to notion_read_page output, content is explained with 'supports inline markdown', and block_type includes a full list of allowed values plus behavior when omitted. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update an existing block's text content.' The verb 'update' is specific, the resource is a block, and the scope is text content, which distinguishes it from siblings like notion_append_content and notion_delete_block. The parameter details further elaborate on the operation.

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 implies usage context by noting block_id comes from notion_read_page output and listing allowed block types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like notion_append_content or notion_update_page. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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