confluence_push_page

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key internal behaviors: reads from local cache, fetches latest version to avoid conflicts, and publishes. This informs the agent about the separate cache file and conflict avoidance. However, it does not mention error handling or missing cache scenarios.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, two sentences explaining the workflow, and two lines for arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core workflow and prerequisites. It explains the cache-based editing pipeline. It is missing return value information, but for a tool intended as part of a larger workflow (get-edit-push), this completeness is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 compensate. It lists both parameters: page_id ('The page ID to push') and version_message ('Optional message describing the change'). This adds some meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, but lacks details like format constraints or behavior when version_message is empty. For two parameters, the compensation is minimal but adequate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Push' and the resource 'cached page to Confluence', clearly distinguishing it as a write operation for locally cached pages. It also outlines the workflow (read cache, fetch version, publish) and references the prerequisite get-and-edit workflow, differentiating it from sibling tools like confluence_edit_page.

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 explicit sequential guidance: 'Call confluence_get_page first, edit the cache file, then call this.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool as part of a pipeline. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is strong and context-specific.

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