Set Page Restrictions

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the critical destructive behavior: it replaces all existing restrictions and can remove all restrictions when parameters are omitted or empty. This gives the agent the key safety-relevant context needed before invoking the tool.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then immediately covers the most important behavioral caveat (replacement), and ends with the removal edge case.

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 presence of an output schema and destructiveHint covers return values and destructive intent, while the description covers the essential replacement/removal behavior. However, there is slight ambiguity about what happens if only some optional parameters are omitted, so it falls just short of complete.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying the overall replace-all semantics and the special behavior of omitting all parameters or passing empty lists, which is not fully captured by individual parameter descriptions alone.

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 action ('Set view and edit restrictions') and the resource ('a Confluence page'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It also differentiates from the sibling confluence_get_page_restrictions by emphasizing the write/set nature.

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 this tool is for modifying restrictions rather than reading them, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions that would rule it out.

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