Update Page Section

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds crucial scoping: it replaces only the content beneath a named heading and leaves all other sections, macros, layouts, and Confluence-specific elements intact. This precisely defines the destructive footprint and explains the safety benefit. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences. The first sentence states the purpose directly; the second elaborates on scope and rationale. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. Front-loaded 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?

The description provides enough context for an agent: the tool is destructive but scoped, the rationale for use, and the key behavior. Combined with rich schema and output schema, it is complete for decision-making. A minor gap is no mention of error behavior if the heading is not found, but that is not essential.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed parameter explanations (e.g., new_content must not include the heading; content_format choices). The description adds some conceptual context by framing the operation in terms of 'section' and 'named heading,' but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a single section of a Confluence page without affecting the rest.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like confluence_update_page by emphasizing section-level granularity and contrasting with full-page round-trip updates. The scope is unambiguous and actionable.

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 gives a clear when-to-use rationale: update a section while preserving other Confluence elements, avoiding the data loss from full-page Markdown round-trip. It implies when not to use (when a full-page update is acceptable), but does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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