confluence_update_page_section

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 reveals the read-modify-write behavior (server fetches full storage internally, writes back whole page), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting other sections), failure modes, or permission requirements, so transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value, explaining both what the tool does and how it works. No excess verbiage.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters (some with complex logic like occurrence and includeHeading) and no output schema. The description does not mention return values, error states, or pagination. While the schema covers parameter details, the description lacks completeness about the tool's output and overall behavior in edge cases.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing meaning for each parameter. The description reinforces the purpose (update section by heading) but does not add detailed parameter-level context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (update) and resource (page section by heading). It explains the internal mechanism (server fetches full storage, replaces matched range, writes back whole page), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like confluence_update_page that update the entire page. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the 'confirmed' variants, slightly reducing clarity.

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 efficient partial updates ('the model only sends the section content'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., staging tools or full page update). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are provided, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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