Create Item From Values

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining that the server retrieves the schema and converts common property types (title, rich_text, etc.). This discloses key behavior. However, it does not mention error cases or idempotency, but overall adds significant value.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and key differentiator. The second provides critical usage guidance. No extraneous information.

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 has 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the main behavior and guides on prerequisites. Missing return value details, but creation tools often have standard return patterns.

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 100% (all 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning by listing supported property types and providing examples for the 'values' parameter. It also explains the 'format' parameter. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb ('Create'), resource ('a new page item in a Notion data source'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying 'using simple property values instead of raw Notion property JSON'. This differentiates it from notion_create_data_source_item (likely raw JSON) and notion_create_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 description explicitly tells when to use this tool: when you have simple property values. It also instructs when to use a sibling: 'Use notion_inspect_data_source first when you need valid property names or option values.' This provides clear context for tool selection.

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