confluence_commit_pending_page_update

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

With no annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: the tool re-reads and hash-checks current content before committing, which implies a safety mechanism. However, it does not detail error handling or permission requirements.

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 sentence under 20 words, with no waste. It front-loads the core action and unique behavior.

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 commit tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action and safety check. It could mention expected outcomes (e.g., success or failure indication) but is largely adequate.

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% and all parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Commit'), the resource ('staged page update'), and the method ('by draftId after re-reading and hash-checking'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'discard' or direct 'update'.

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 usage after staging, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'update_page' vs 'commit_pending'), nor does it mention when not to use it.

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