update_confluence_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavior: Markdown is auto-converted to Confluence storage format and version bumping is handled automatically, which meaningfully lowers agent burden. It does not say whether the update replaces the entire page body or merges, nor what permissions are required, so the mutational risk profile is only partly disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then the required-format constraint, then behavioral notes. The Markdown syntax enumeration is somewhat redundant against the schema but stays contained in one sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage the description stops short of what an agent needs: whether content is fully replaced, whether conflicts or version mismatches error out, and whether prior permissions checks are required. Not misleading, just 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (pageId, title, markdownContent) are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates the Markdown requirement and syntax list verbatim. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing Confluence page'), and the word 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_confluence_page. However, it never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_confluence_page or when to fetch a page first, and no mention of the check_confluence_permissions sibling despite this being a write operation. The 'REQUIRED: Always provide Markdown content' line is a formatting constraint, not usage guidance.

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