Set Page Restrictions

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

Beyond the annotation 'destructiveHint: true', the description discloses that it 'Replaces all existing restrictions with the provided lists' and that omitting all parameters or passing empty lists removes all restrictions. This is critical behavioral insight for an agent, as it indicates the operation is not additive but a full overwrite, and can also remove protections. This exceeds the annotation's simple danger flag.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and immediately follows with the most important behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is largely complete for a tool with rich schema and annotations. It explains the replacement and removal behavior, but leaves a minor ambiguity: what happens when only some parameters are omitted (e.g., only read_users supplied). The phrase 'replaces all existing restrictions' implies omitted lists are treated as empty, but this is not stated explicitly. Still, the core use cases are 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the combined semantics: the provided lists replace all existing restrictions, and omitting all parameters or passing empty lists clears restrictions. This clarifies how the parameters interact as a set, which is not obvious from the individual schema descriptions alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set view and edit restrictions on a Confluence page.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'confluence_get_page_restrictions' (which retrieves) and 'confluence_check_content_permissions' (which checks). The second sentence clarifies the tool's core behavior, further eliminating ambiguity.

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 clearly implies this tool is used to modify page restrictions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear: this is for setting/replacing restrictions, not for viewing them. The destructive behavior is noted, which helps the agent choose this only when a modification is intended. No exclusions are stated, so it loses one point for not explicitly naming alternatives.

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