notion_update_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. It never discloses that this is a partial update, whether archiving is reversible, what permission scope is needed, or what happens to unspecified fields. 'Archived' in the schema is a state change with destructive implications that goes entirely unexplained.

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?

It is three words with no wasted text and the core action is front-loaded. But this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness: the brevity comes at the cost of any routing or behavioral 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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain partial-update semantics and the archive behavior. Instead it omits all of that, leaving the agent to guess at side effects.

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 the schema already documents every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond the schema. If anything, calling everything 'properties' conflicts with the separate icon/cover/archived parameters.

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?

It states a clear verb and resource (update a Notion page), which is better than a tautology. However, it narrows the tool to 'properties' even though the schema also exposes icon, cover, and archived, so an agent may misjudge the tool's reach. It also does nothing to separate it from siblings like notion_update_block or notion_get_page_property.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of prerequisites, no indication of when to prefer this over notion_append_block_children or notion_update_block, and no statement that only the supplied fields are changed. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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