md2confluence-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation (not read-only), specifies the hierarchical relationship aspect, and warns about the destructive nature of the alternative tool (upload_page updates existing pages). However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure.

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, usage guidelines, warnings) and uses bullet points efficiently. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value by clarifying usage scenarios and differentiating from alternatives, with no redundant information.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining when to use it and distinguishing it from alternatives. It covers the core behavioral context well, though it could benefit from mentioning what happens on success (e.g., returns new page URL) or failure conditions.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a NEW page as a child') and resource ('sub-page of an existing page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_page which updates instead of creates. The purpose is unambiguous and directly addresses hierarchical page creation.

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 provides explicit guidance with dedicated 'MUST USE THIS TOOL WHEN' and 'WARNING' sections, including multilingual examples and clear alternatives (upload_page for updates). It explicitly states when to use this tool versus other options, making selection straightforward for an agent.

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