confluence_update_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the page is updated, without revealing whether content is replaced, whether title and body can be updated independently, or what permissions or side effects apply. This is minimal and does not go beyond the basic verb.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and communicates the core operation efficiently, though it is sparse on supporting context. The conciseness is good, but the lack of any additional structure barely justifies a perfect score.

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 simplicity of the operation and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable for invoking the tool: pageId is required, body and title are optional updates. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not mention return behavior, prerequisites, or side effects, leaving noticeable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (pageId, body, title) including that body is in ADF JSON. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the 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 'Обновить существующую страницу Confluence' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (existing Confluence page), which is specific enough. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like confluence_create_page or confluence_get_page, but the word 'existing' gives some implicit distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as confluence_create_page or confluence_search_pages. No conditions, exclusions, or relational context with sibling tools are mentioned. The word 'existing' implies update rather than creation, but this is not made explicit.

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