Create Page

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

Annotations include 'destructiveHint: true', so the destructive nature is already declared. The description adds the fact that it raises ValueError in certain conditions, but does not detail side effects beyond creation. Much of the behavioral context is already covered by the annotated hints and schema. The description provides adequate but not extensive additional transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 8 parameters, but some verbosity exists due to duplicating parameter descriptions that are already in the schema. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema present) and the fact that schema descriptions are comprehensive, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, return value, and potential errors. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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?

Input schema covers all 8 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The docstring's Args section largely replicates parameter names and types without adding new semantic information. For example, 'space_key' is simply restated as 'The key of the space' while the schema provides a richer description. No new constraints or contextual hints are added beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new Confluence page.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'confluence_update_page' or 'confluence_delete_page'. The verb 'Create' and resource 'Confluence page' are 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 does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is straightforward. The docstring lists parameters and return, implying usage for creation. The existence of 'confluence_update_page' as a sibling implies when to use this vs alternatives, but lacks explicit guidance. Error conditions (e.g., read-only mode) are noted, providing context.

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