confluence_update_page_anchor_block_confirmed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool re-reads the page and only updates if the hash matches current content, which is key. However, it does not mention other important aspects like permissions required, potential failures, or side effects like destructive updates.

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 concise sentences deliver the essential information without fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on return values, success/failure behavior, and workflow integration. The tool is part of a multi-step process, and the description does not fully contextualize it.

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?

The input schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly tying 'expectedCurrentHash' to the preview step. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score is 3.

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 it confirms an anchor-based block update after preview, specifying the server re-reads and checks hash match. This distinguishes it from preview and other sibling tools.

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 indicates it should be used 'after preview' and mentions the hash check, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context of sibling tools implies the workflow, but the description lacks explicit guidance.

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