push_md_to_confluence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key behavior: it creates or updates pages based on frontmatter or title/space, indicating mutation and idempotency. However, it does not disclose details like whether existing content is overwritten, how conflicts are handled, or any side effects beyond page creation/update.

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 short, front-loaded sentences that state the primary action and the core decision logic. Every word contributes value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool's complexity (write operation, 5 parameters) but high schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the main behavioral nuance (create vs update) and the matching strategy, though it omits return value details and failure modes. Since no output schema exists, some return information could be expected, but the core functionality is well covered.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'frontmatter or title/space', which ties to filePath and spaceKey, but does not offer additional parameter-specific semantics 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Push') and resource ('markdown files to Confluence'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve or search. It also clarifies the dual behavior of creating new pages or updating existing ones, 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?

The description implies usage context (pushing markdown to Confluence) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'sync_confluence_docs' or when one approach (e.g., using frontmatter vs title/space) is preferred. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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