Move Page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say that child pages move with the page, that permissions may not carry across spaces, or what error occurs when the target is invalid.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target are the first words read. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With a full schema, an output schema and rich annotations, the structured data carries most of the load, so the description can be short. But for a destructive, cross-space hierarchy change, the omission of permission and side-effect context leaves a real gap an agent would want filled.

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 every parameter including the 'append'/'above'/'below' position semantics and the parent-vs-space-key precedence is already documented. The phrase 'new parent or space' merely echoes that split without adding format or precedence detail.

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?

Specific verb ('Move') plus resource ('Confluence page') and scope ('new parent or space'), which an agent can immediately map to a hierarchy mutation. It is implicitly distinct from confluence_copy_page and confluence_update_page, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion (e.g. 'use copy_page to duplicate instead'), and no prerequisites such as needing edit permission in both source and target space. The agent must infer that this must not be used for cross-space duplication.

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