Notion Workflow MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool '在页面 body 中记录开始时间' (records start time in the page body), which adds useful context about side effects. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the task is already in progress, or error conditions. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with the core functionality in the first sentence and parameter/return documentation in separate sections. The Chinese text is direct and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the separation of Args/Returns from the main description creates some fragmentation that slightly reduces readability.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and only one parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and state transition. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about permissions, idempotency, and error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for more complete operational guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description provides the essential semantic meaning for 'task_id' ('要开始的任务ID' - the task ID to start). While it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules, it clearly explains what the parameter represents. For a single-parameter tool, this is adequate though not comprehensive.

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 specific action ('将任务从"待办"推进到"进行中"' - moves a task from 'todo' to 'in progress'), identifies the resource (task), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'complete_task' (which would move to a different state) and 'update_task' (which is more general). The verb+resource+state change combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 mentioning the starting state ('待办' - todo) and the target state ('进行中' - in progress), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'complete_task' or 'update_task'. It provides some guidance through the state transition description but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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