notion_update_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about mutation semantics. It does not explain that only the key matching the block's actual type should be supplied, whether the update is partial or whole-block replacement, permission/auth requirements, or how the 'archived' flag behaves. This is a substantial gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single short phrase is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is undersized for a 28-parameter mutation tool; the terseness signals under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 highly complex tool with 25 mutually exclusive block-type objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the critical operating rule that the caller must pass the object keyed to the block's real type, leaving the agent to infer this entirely from the schema.

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%, so all 28 parameters (including the 25 block-type objects and the archived flag) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a verb and resource (update a block's content), but 'content' is the only word distinguishing it from the tool name notion_update_block, making it near-tautological. It gives no basis for telling it apart from siblings like notion_append_block_children, notion_get_block, or notion_delete_block. A minimally viable statement of purpose with no differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to update an existing block here versus append/replace via notion_append_block_children or notion_delete_block, nor are any prerequisites stated. No usage guidance at all.

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