confluence_update_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious Confluence constraint (drafts stay at version 1) and clarifies status transition behavior, going beyond a simple 'update' statement. It doesn't mention response/error behavior, but that's not critical for this tool.

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, front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the key behavioral nuance (status/versioning) and leaves parameter details to the schema. It doesn't mention return values, but that's not essential for an update operation.

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 schema already provides descriptions for body, title, and status (75% coverage). The description adds the version-1 constraint for drafts, but largely mirrors the schema's status explanation. It doesn't add meaning for pageId or other parameters.

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 opens with 'Update a Confluence page' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_page and get_page by focusing on updating existing pages, and adds unique status-handling details.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use status='current' to publish a draft and explains the default preservation of draft/current status. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the update-vs-create distinction is evident from the tool name and sibling list.

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