confluence_update_page_section_confirmed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that the server re-reads the page and conditionally updates based on hash match. This goes beyond the schema. It could mention error behavior on hash mismatch, but still effective.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The essential information is front-loaded: purpose and condition for success.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and condition. It could be more complete by noting what happens if the hash doesn't match, but overall it adequately informs an agent.

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 extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'expectedCurrentHash' relates to the preview step behavior).

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 tool is for confirming a heading-based section update after preview, using a hash check. It specifies the verb 'confirm' and the resource 'section update', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'confluence_update_page_section' which likely skips the preview step.

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 the tool should be used after a preview step and only succeeds if the hash matches, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives like 'confluence_commit_pending_page_update'.

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