Update Confluence Article

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the version auto-increment behavior and the return shape {ok, id, version}. It does not disclose whether body is a full replacement or merge, nor how concurrency/stale-version failures surface, which is the key behavioral detail an agent needs before calling a destructive page update.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then the critical precondition, then the return shape. No filler sentences.

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?

Return-shape disclosure compensates for the absent output schema, and the version precondition is stated. However, a destructive, open-world mutation should also tell the agent that title/body fully overwrite existing content and how to recover from a version mismatch.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description's '(auto-incremented)' note reinforces the version parameter's mechanics but adds nothing about body replacement semantics beyond the schema's markdown hint.

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 Confluence page'), which is immediately distinguishable from jcm_getArticle and jcm_createArticle. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the mutating intent is unambiguous.

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 version sentence implies the read-then-update workflow (get current version, then update), but the description never says to call jcm_getArticle first or what to do on a version conflict. Usage is only implied, not directed.

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