confluence_update_page

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: optimistic locking via version, output trimming by default, and the 'full' parameter to bypass trimming. With no annotations provided, the description adequately reveals mutation and response behavior, though it omits details like authentication or rate limits.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and requirements. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the update logic, version locking, output trimming, and body format. It does not explicitly describe the return value or error conditions, but the behavior is reasonably complete for a typical 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?

The schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant value by explaining body format options ('storage' vs 'atlas_doc_format') and the impact of the 'full' parameter on output. It also clarifies required parameters and the purpose of 'version' (optimistic locking), going beyond basic 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 clearly states the action ('Update an existing page') and specifies the required parameters (page ID, new title, body, current version number). It also differentiates from sibling tools like 'confluence_update_page_from_markdown' by highlighting the need for explicit HTML/Markdown content and version locking.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (updating an existing page) and the necessary prerequisites (page ID, version). However, it does not explicitly advise against using this tool for other operations (e.g., creating pages or updating via markdown), nor does it compare it to alternatives like 'confluence_update_page_from_markdown'.

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