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 valuable context beyond this: it specifies the return format ('JSON string representing the updated page object'), raises errors for client configuration or invalid formats, and mentions optional behaviors like minor edits and content inclusion in response. This enhances understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 (purpose, Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loaded the core action. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Args listing is somewhat redundant given the schema. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient but not minimal.

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 (10 parameters, destructive operation) and rich structured data (annotations, 100% schema coverage, output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and error conditions, providing adequate context without needing to explain return values due to the output schema.

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 the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description lists parameters in an 'Args' section but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it repeats parameter names without extra context). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Update an existing Confluence page') and resource ('page'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'confluence_create_page' (creates new) and 'confluence_delete_page' (removes). It precisely identifies the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 updating existing pages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confluence_move_page' (for parent changes) or 'confluence_get_page' (for reading). It lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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