Update Page

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation destructiveHint: true. It does not disclose what the update overwrites (e.g., entire page content vs. individual fields), whether version history is preserved, or any permission/side-effect details. With a destructive flag already present, the description still fails to add informative context such as 'replaces the entire page body' or 'creates a new version'.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with 13 parameters and complex options like mutually exclusive content/content_file. It is not verbose, but it is barely more informative than a tautology; this leans toward under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 (13 params, output schema, sibling tools like update_page_section and move_page), the description is far too sparse. It does not mention key usage prerequisites (e.g., required page_id and title, content replacement semantics, or interactions with other tools). The excellent output schema and rich parameter descriptions mitigate some gaps, but the description itself fails to provide enough context for confident tool selection and 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%, meaning every parameter is already documented in the input schema with detailed descriptions. The description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not add extra semantic value.

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 'Update an existing Confluence page' clearly states a specific action and resource, making the tool's core purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling tool 'confluence_update_page_section', which could easily be confused with it. The verb+resource is clear but sibling differentiation is absent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'confluence_create_page', 'confluence_update_page_section'). There is no mention of scenarios where this should be preferred, no exclusions, and no alternative tool names referenced. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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