update_confluence_page

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 of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'update' without detailing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or whether existing content is overwritten. The schema notes versionNumber must be current+1, but that is in the schema, not the description, and the description adds no behavioral context.

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 a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'update', making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized.

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 annotations, this description is very bare. It does not mention return value, prerequisites, or the tool's overall scope beyond 'content'. The context signals indicate a fairly simple tool, but the description alone is insufficient to fully understand what the client will experience.

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 100%, meaning all 4 parameters are well documented in the schema itself. The description does not add further clarification about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema carries the explanatory weight.

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 identifies the action as updating an existing Confluence page, using the specific verb 'update' and the resource 'an existing Confluence page'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_confluence_page (creation) and get_confluence_page (retrieval), making the purpose 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 description implies use for modifying existing pages by saying 'existing', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_confluence_page. There is no direct mention of when not to use it or specific scenarios, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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