confluence_update_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool updates a page and raises a ValueError if the client is misconfigured, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwriting content), what permissions are required, or if there are rate limits. The description lacks important behavioral context for a mutation 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 structured as a Python docstring, which is clear and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is somewhat verbose with repeated parameter details. A more concise summary would improve efficiency for AI agents, but the current structure is still effective.

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 complexity of 8 parameters (3 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the input clearly, explains content format options, and notes conditional behavior (enable_heading_anchors only for markdown). It lacks details on output structure, but the output schema compensates. It is reasonably complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description essentially repeats the parameter list without adding significant new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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: 'Update an existing Confluence page.' It specifies the resource (Confluence page) and the action (update). The tool name itself is unambiguous, and sibling tools like 'confluence_create_page' and 'confluence_delete_page' provide clear differentiation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to create vs update). It does not list prerequisites, such as requiring the page to exist prior to update. The only context is the tool name and the sibling list, which does not compensate for the lack of explicit usage instructions.

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