confluence_get_pending_page_update

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

The description discloses that the tool retrieves a staged update (read operation) but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or whether it can be called multiple times. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, minimal and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, the second adds important context. No waste.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., the staged update object). Additional context about return value would improve completeness.

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% for the single parameter, which already explains 'Draft ID returned by a stage tool'. The description redundantly mentions 'by draftId' but adds no extra meaning beyond the 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 verb (Get), resource (staged page update), and identifier (draftId). It distinguishes from siblings like commit_pending_page_update and discard_pending_page_update by emphasizing that the draft has not been written yet.

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 in the staging workflow but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as commit_pending_page_update or list_pending_page_updates. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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