confluence_set_restrictions

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is destructive (replaces restrictions) and specifies the operation parameter, but lacks details on required permissions, side effects, or confirmation of whether the action is reversible.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a clear args breakdown, but the multi-line explanation of how to remove restrictions adds a bit of length without sacrificing clarity.

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 annotations or output schema, the description covers mutation behavior and parameter details adequately. However, it lacks examples, return value description, and confirmation of success/failure handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: page_id accepts numeric IDs or URLs, operation is restricted to 'read' or 'update', and users/groups are lists of account IDs/group names. This compensates for the bare schema.

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 sets access restrictions on a Confluence page, using a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('restrictions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only tool dedicated to this operation.

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 explains the tool replaces existing restrictions and how to remove them, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied but not formalized.

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