Check Content Permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to carry the full safety burden. It adds useful context about the underlying POST endpoint, the Cloud-only limitation, and the hasPermission boolean return value, though it does not mention auth requirements or how permission resolution works beyond that.

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 concise and front-loads the purpose before the API endpoint, platform note, and return-value summary. Most sentences earn their place, though the wrapped endpoint detail is somewhat extraneous given the schema and annotations.

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 read-only permission-check tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: the Cloud-only availability and the hasPermission result shape. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without needing additional behavioral disclosures.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters, including example values and the user/group distinction. The description does not add parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource: checking whether a user or group can perform an operation on specific content. It is clear enough to distinguish the tool's core purpose, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling permission tools such as confluence_get_page_restrictions or confluence_get_space_permissions.

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?

It provides a clear usage context by noting that the tool is only available for Confluence Cloud and that Server/Data Center instances use different permission APIs. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for checking permissions, so the agent must infer when to use this versus get_page_restrictions or get_space_permissions.

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