md2confluence-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context beyond basic functionality. It explains the routing logic based on input type, specifies that parentId is ignored during updates, and mentions that Mermaid diagrams are auto-converted to images. However, it doesn't cover permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (main purpose, routing rules, do's/don'ts, special feature). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance. The use of emojis and formatting makes it scannable while remaining 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the dual create/update behavior, routing logic, sibling tool relationships, and a special feature (Mermaid conversion). However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns or potential error 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. The description adds some semantic context by explaining how the 'space' parameter behaves differently depending on whether it's a space key/URL or page URL, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already cover.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Upload Markdown to Confluence', 'UPDATE existing page') and resources ('at SPACE ROOT level'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'DO NOT use this tool to create child/sub-pages' and directing users to 'create_child_page' instead.

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 routing rules with clear when/when-not guidance: 'Page URL provided → UPDATES that existing page', 'Space key/URL only → Creates NEW page at space root level', and '❌ DO NOT use this tool to create child/sub-pages. ✅ Use 'create_child_page' tool instead'. It names the specific alternative tool for hierarchical pages.

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