Update Page

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that. It does not disclose whether omitted fields preserve existing content, whether a new version is created, or what side effects update may have. Since annotations already carry the destructive signal, the description contributes almost nothing.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is effectively a restatement of the tool name and title. For a tool with 13 parameters and multiple sibling operations, a one-sentence description that adds no constraints or usage context is under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

The rich input schema and output schema carry most of the contextual load, making this minimally viable. However, the description fails to clarify important update semantics, such as whether omitted content is preserved or cleared, or how this update interacts with page versioning. It is adequate only because the schema fills in most operational details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already define every field including defaults, formats, and mutual exclusions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema is self-sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('existing Confluence page'), which is understandable on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'confluence_update_page_section', leaving some ambiguity about scope (full page vs section).

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus create_page, update_page_section, move_page, or delete_page. The description simply says 'update an existing Confluence page' with no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or situations where a different sibling is preferred.

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