Call Confluence REST API

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, openWorld=true, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful operational context: write/delete calls act as the configured user, and credentials must never be placed in apiPath, query, or body. It does not describe response or error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 four concise sentences with no wasted text. Scope, examples, method support, and security constraints are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a generic, open-world, destructive REST passthrough with no output schema, the description covers endpoint scope, method support, credentials handling, and acting-user identity. It does not explain response shape, error behavior, pagination, or when specialized siblings should be used instead, leaving meaningful gaps for a high-complexity tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains apiPath well, including that it is relative to /rest/ and giving examples, and it restates the supported methods from the enum. However, query and body semantics remain thin: body is untyped and query structure is only implied by the schema, so key usage details are missing.

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 a specific action: call any JSON Confluence Server/Data Center REST endpoint on the configured host. It gives concrete apiPath examples under /rest/, making the tool's scope understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many specialized Confluence siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the statement that it can call any JSON REST endpoint and supports GET/POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE. However, it does not say when to prefer this generic tool over dedicated siblings like confluence_get_page, confluence_search, or confluence_create_page. The security warning and acting-user note give context, but routing guidance is missing.

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