confluence_regex_replace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, whether permissions are required, or what happens to formatting. The description mentions 'every text node in the ADF' but remains vague about side effects or reversibility.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary followed by a parameter docstring with no extraneous information. Every sentence provides value.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., updated page content or status). It also lacks behavioral details that annotations would normally provide. However, the tool is relatively straightforward, making the description minimally viable.

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 compensates well: it explains that `page_id` accepts numeric IDs or Confluence URLs, `pattern` is a Python regex, `replacement` supports backreferences like \1, and `version_message` is optional. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 the tool's action: 'Find and replace text using a regex pattern on a Confluence page.' It specifies the verb (find and replace), resource (Confluence page), and mechanism (regex pattern). This distinguishes it from siblings like `confluence_find_replace` (likely simpler find/replace) and `confluence_edit_page` (general editing).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it notes support for capture groups, it does not compare to related tools like `confluence_find_replace` (which may be simpler) or mention prerequisites or limitations. The agent gets no help in choosing between regex and non-regex replace.

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