confluence_write

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

With no annotations, the description clearly indicates the tool is destructive ('overwrite') and specifies format details. However, it does not disclose authorization needs, idempotency, or side effects on other page elements.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence adds essential information: purpose, format clarification, and CLI reference.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites. It references a CLI command for more info, which is helpful but incomplete.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying the JFM format default, GitHub-style markdown nature, and providing a reference resource. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 overwrites a Confluence page body using JFM or ADF. It distinguishes from sibling tools like confluence_create by specifying 'overwrite' and highlighting the format nuances.

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 explains the default format and mentions a CLI mirror, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others (e.g., confluence_create). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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