conf_update_page

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

Annotations already declare the mutation is destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: conflicts surface as errors with no automatic retry, implying optimistic concurrency. It still omits what a destructive update actually overwrites (e.g. whether title/body replace existing content wholesale) and what the conflict error looks like.

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 short sentences with no waste; the version prerequisite is front-loaded ahead of the conflict behavior. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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?

For a destructive, irrecoverable update with four required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin. An agent gets the concurrency rule but not replacement semantics, permission requirements, or error shape — the things most likely to cause a bad call.

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 carry the burden and mostly does not. It explains only currentVersion (must come from get_page), leaving pageId, title, and body undocumented — notably whether body is storage-format markup and whether omitted content is cleared.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update page") plus the version constraint that governs the operation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like conf_create_page and conf_delete_page, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Implies a workflow precondition by telling the agent to use the version returned by get_page, which is genuinely useful for correct invocation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites like edit permissions, and no routing to sibling tools for related tasks.

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