atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating a mutation. The description adds context by specifying that it moves pages to new parents or spaces, mentions cross-space moves, and notes error conditions (e.g., missing targets or unconfigured client). However, it does not detail side effects like impact on links or permissions, which would enhance 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 a brief purpose statement followed by sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter listing slightly repeats schema information, making it slightly verbose but still clear.

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 destructiveHint annotation and output schema, the description covers key aspects like purpose, parameters, errors, and returns. It lacks details on behavioral nuances (e.g., link updates) but is mostly complete for a mutation tool with good schema support.

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%, providing clear parameter details. The description lists parameters and their purposes but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases. It clarifies that target_parent_id and target_space_key are optional but does not elaborate on their interaction.

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 ('Move a Confluence page') and resource ('page'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'confluence_create_page' or 'confluence_update_page' by focusing on relocation rather than creation or content modification.

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 for moving pages within or across spaces but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'confluence_update_page' for content changes) or provide exclusions. It mentions cross-space moves but lacks guidance on prerequisites or common scenarios.

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