Ops MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool updates content and can append, but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what 'confirmation of the update' entails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the subsequent lines clarify parameter roles and behaviors. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects). The output schema handles return values, so the description's focus on parameters is appropriate, but more behavioral disclosure would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: 'page_id' identifies the target, 'body' specifies new content format, 'title' explains optional behavior, and 'append' defines a key behavioral flag. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Update an existing Confluence page's content'), identifies the resource ('Confluence page'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_confluence_page' (creation vs. update). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 usage context through the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'If omitted, keeps the existing title'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_confluence_page' or 'get_page_content'. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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