update_api_doc

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the page will be modified, but it does not state whether the page content is overwritten wholesale, whether existing non-generated content is preserved, whether a new Confluence version is created, or what permissions/errors are involved.

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 focused sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It puts the core action and target resource up front, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits the optional filtering behavior, the effect on page content, and how a successful update is communicated. Sibling differentiation is also absent, so an agent cannot confidently choose this over similar update/sync tools.

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 already describes all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by tying 'existing page' to pageId and 'new spec' to swaggerSource, but it adds nothing about filterTags or filterPaths.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('an existing API documentation page'), and the input type ('new Swagger/OpenAPI spec'). It clearly distinguishes update-from-create by saying 'existing', but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling 'update_api_doc_from_controller' or 'sync_swagger_to_confluence'.

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 phrasing implies this tool is for refreshing an already-created Confluence API doc page when a new spec is available. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention alternatives like create_api_doc or update_api_doc_from_controller.

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