update_confluence_page

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the conflict detection behavior via version number and states what can be updated (title, content, or both). However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens on failure, leaving gaps 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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides key usage guidance. No redundant words, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core operation and conflict requirement. However, it neglects to explain return values, behavior of optional parameters (minorEdit, versionComment), or content format specifics, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond schema by reinforcing the importance of pageId and version for conflict prevention. It does not enrich other parameters like minorEdit or versionComment beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Updates an existing Confluence page.' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_confluence_page' by specifying 'update' and requires page ID and version, indicating it's for existing pages.

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 explains the core requirement ('You must provide the page ID and its current version number to prevent conflicts'), which guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied distinction from creation tools.

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