Update Confluence page

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write; the description adds the genuinely useful operational fact that the server reads the current version and increments it, which changes how the agent must call it. It stops short of saying what happens on a version mismatch (error vs. silent overwrite) or whether bodyStorage replaces the entire body.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the most important capability statement is front-loaded before the version-increment and concurrency details.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions on any of its five parameters, the description covers the highest-risk concern (version conflicts) but leaves contentId identification, versionMessage purpose, and body replacement semantics unaddressed.

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, and it covers three of five: title, bodyStorage (storage-format body), and expectedVersion's concurrency guard. contentId and versionMessage are left entirely unexplained, and bodyStorage's replace-vs-merge semantics are unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a page's title and/or storage-format body'), and the mention of storage-format narrows the scope meaningfully. It does not explicitly name confluence_create_page or confluence_delete_page as alternatives, but the verb makes the boundary obvious against its CRUD siblings.

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 guidance is limited to one conditional: set expectedVersion to avoid overwriting a page that changed since you read it. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus confluence_create_page, whether an existing read is a prerequisite, or what permissions are needed.

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