confluence_preview_page_section_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return of a hash for confirmation, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (preview implies no mutation, but not stated). No mention of authorization or rate limits.

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 that front-loads the purpose and return values. Every part is informative with 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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters) and no output schema, the description explains the return values (section, replacement, hash) which is helpful. However, it lacks guidance on how parameters like occurrence, includeHeading, and matchMode affect the preview, and no hint about the format of the returned section.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema descriptions for parameters like pageId, heading, sectionStorageValue, occurrence, includeHeading, matchMode. It repeats 'heading-based' but does not elaborate on parameter interactions.

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 'preview' and the resource 'heading-based section update'. It specifies the return values (matched section, proposed replacement, hash) and the requirement to echo the hash to the confirmed update call, distinguishing it from sibling preview tools like confluence_preview_page_anchor_block_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 the tool is a prerequisite for a confirmed update by mentioning the hash, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools such as stage or direct update. No direct guidance on when to use this preview versus other update approaches.

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