confluence_update_page_from_markdown_legacy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that output is trimmed by default and that `full=true` returns raw response. It also clarifies that ```mermaid code blocks render as syntax-highlighted code, not as Mermaid diagrams. It lacks details on permissions or rate limits but is otherwise transparent for an update operation.

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 detailed but well-structured, with essential information placed upfront (legacy status, preferred alternative, supported features, caveats, and output behavior). It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value, making it efficient despite the length.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it explains supported syntax, legacy context, output trimming behavior, and file path alternative. It does not describe the return value structure, but the mention of trimming partially compensates. Overall, it covers most aspects needed for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `full` parameter (output trimming), `markdownFilePath` (precedence over `markdown`, size limit), and `version` (optimistic locking). It also clarifies that `markdownFilePath` takes precedence. This provides meaning beyond the schema.

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 it is a legacy tool for updating a page using Confluence storage format (XHTML), contrasts it with the preferred `confluence_update_page_from_markdown` (ADF), and specifies when to use it (when ADF is disabled). It also lists supported Markdown features, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly advises to prefer the ADF-based tool and only use this legacy version when ADF is disabled. It also provides guidance on using `markdownFilePath` for large documents to avoid tool call size limits and explains the output trimming behavior with the `full` parameter. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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