Set Page Restrictions

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the destructive replacement behavior and what happens when parameters are omitted. Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, so the description reinforces and elaborates. It also documents the return type and error condition.

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 structured with sections (Args, Returns, Raises), which aids readability. However, the Args section is verbose and largely redundant with the input schema, adding unnecessary length. The first sentence is clear, but the overall description could be more concise.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, return type, and error conditions. Given that an output schema exists, the return description is sufficient. It provides a complete understanding of the tool's functionality without relying heavily on the schema or annotations.

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 the baseline is 3. The Args section in the description largely repeats the schema descriptions (e.g., Account IDs vs usernames). It adds minimal new semantics, such as clarifying that omitted parameters remove restrictions, which is already implied by the schema defaults. Therefore, it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Set view and edit restrictions on a Confluence page.' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('restrictions on a Confluence page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'confluence_get_page_restrictions' which retrieve restrictions.

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 explains that the tool 'Replaces all existing restrictions with the provided lists' and that omitting parameters removes restrictions. This provides clear context on when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like the get tool.

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