create_confluence_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses REST API v2, requires specific credentials, and creates a page in storage format. However, it does not describe failure modes, response behavior, or side effects beyond creation, and it does not explicitly warn that a page is immediately published by default. There is no annotation contradiction.

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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool context and environment requirements each earn their place. It is concise but information-dense.

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 create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: why this tool exists, how it is invoked, the body format, and required credentials. The schema covers parameter details. It does not describe the return value or edge cases like parent page resolution, but these are minor gaps given the strong schema coverage.

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?

The input schema already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, including the storage-format constraint on bodyHtml and the spaceId resolution behavior. The description reinforces the storage-format point but does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Confluence Cloud page via the REST API v2 (storage-format body).' It also distinguishes itself from the hosted Rovo MCP createConfluencePage tool by stating it is a working alternative, so the agent can understand exactly what this tool does and how it is different.

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 frames when to use this tool: as a replacement for the hosted Rovo MCP createConfluencePage tool that returns a persistent 404. It also lists the required environment variables (CONFLUENCE_SITE, ATLASSIAN_EMAIL, ATLASSIAN_API_TOKEN), giving clear prerequisites. It does not enumerate other alternatives, but there are no sibling tools provided.

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