publish_confluence_page

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It discloses the key behavioral traits: creation vs. overwrite, update-by-title, and a specific body format requirement. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens to space_key/parent_page_id when left at defaults, which would be valuable 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds necessary detail. There is no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the tool has 4 parameters, a mutation risk, and no annotations. The description omits the semantics of space_key and parent_page_id, and does not explain the creation flow when no parent is specified. This leaves meaning gaps for an AI agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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, but it only explains two of the four parameters. It clarifies body format (XHTML) and source (`confluence` value), and how title drives the update. Space_key and parent_page_id are entirely underexplained beyond their schema names/defaults.

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 begins with 'Create or overwrite a Confluence page', a specific verb+resource that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_connection or list_sprints. It also explains the update-by-title behavior, making the purpose 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?

It gives concrete guidance: body must be Confluence storage format and the `confluence` value should come from a report. This implies the primary use case (publishing report output), but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, 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.