update_confluence_page

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses optimistic-concurrency intent ('current version number to prevent conflicts') and partial update scope, but it does not state what happens on version mismatch, permission requirements, or side effects such as watcher notifications.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action, then state the required inputs and the editable fields. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 description is adequate for a standard update operation: it names the resource, scope, and required inputs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around conflict-failure behavior, return value, and when to prefer create/read sibling tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the role of pageId and version and mentions title/content, but it adds little beyond the schema's own field documentation.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Updates an existing Confluence page.' The word 'existing' distinguishes it from sibling create_confluence_page, and 'title, content, or both' clarifies the scope of the update.

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?

It clearly establishes the use case (modifying an existing page) and the prerequisite of supplying pageId and current version to avoid conflicts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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