confluence_update_blog_post

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: output trimming by default with a full=true option to get raw response, and optimistic locking via version number. However, it does not mention authorization needs, side effects, or reversibility. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the burden and addresses it well.

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-loading purpose and requirements, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys all critical information.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core update operation, response trimming option, and the meaning of version. It misses potential error conditions or expected response structure, but remains largely complete for a CRUD update 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the storage format for body, the purpose of version for optimistic locking, and the effect of the full parameter on output. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing blog post' and lists the required parameters (blogPostId, title, body, version), making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like create_blog_post or delete_blog_post.

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 when to use the tool (for updating an existing blog post) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to consider. No exclusions or context for sibling differentiation is given.

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