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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what actually gets posted (summary, questions to confirm, live-flow link) and the disconnected-app error behavior that directs the user to Wavelength settings, which an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: the two modes lead, the payload content follows, and the error-handling note closes. No sentence is redundant with another and none restates the title.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers mode selection, payload contents, and the most likely failure mode. It stops short of stating what the successful response returns (page id/URL), which an agent might want for chaining, but otherwise it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the isolated schema entries don't: the mutually exclusive parameter combinations (space_key/parent_page_id vs page_id) and the role of summary as overriding the default text. This is genuine semantic value beyond the field-level docs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make a new Confluence page from a flow ... or add the flow to the end of an existing page') and cleanly separates the two operating modes. The Confluence target distinguishes it from the send_flow_to_jira/notion/salesforce/servicenow siblings without needing the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent which parameters select each mode: space_key (+ optional parent_page_id) for a new page, page_id to append to an existing one. It does not, however, point to find_confluence_targets for discovering space_key/page_id values, which is the one obvious routing gap.

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