confluence_update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but reveals nothing about side effects (e.g., version creation, permissions required, atomicity, or response behavior). This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's operational characteristics.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but arguably too sparse given the missing behavioral and contextual details. Conciseness is good, but it trades off completeness, preventing a perfect score.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should compensate with richer context. It does not explain what happens on success (e.g., returns updated page), how versioning works, or specifics about the content format (beyond schema). The tool has 4 required params and is a mutation, so the description is not complete enough for safe agent 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%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not compensate or elaborate on parameter nuances such as the format of 'content' or the role of 'version' in optimistic locking.

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 the verb (update) and resource (existing Confluence page), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like confluence_create_page or confluence_get_page. It implicitly differentiates by specifying 'existing', yet an explicit reference to alternatives would be stronger.

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 clear context on when to use: when an existing Confluence page needs modification. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use (e.g., for creation or retrieval) and does not mention prerequisites such as having the current version number. The context is clear but lacks full usage boundaries.

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