Set Page Restrictions

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the crucial detail that this is a full replace rather than a merge, plus that passing empty/omitted lists clears all restrictions — the single most important behavioral fact here. What is missing is the permission level required to apply restrictions.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the destructive replace semantics follow immediately. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive/idempotent annotations are reinforced rather than contradicted. For a destructive permission mutation, the remaining gap is operational context: required permissions and where to source valid account IDs or group names.

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 page_id, read/edit users, and read/edit groups are all documented in the schema, including the Cloud-vs-Server/DC account ID difference. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond confirming that lists are wholesale replacements, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Set view and edit restrictions on a Confluence page"), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling confluence_get_page_restrictions. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the get/set verb contrast rather than prose.

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 the replacement semantics and the omit-all-params escape hatch, which tells an agent how the call behaves once chosen. It never states when to use this versus confluence_check_content_permissions or confluence_get_page_restrictions first, and gives no prerequisite guidance (e.g., admin rights, resolving account IDs via confluence_search_user).

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