confluence_update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, and it does by warning about Confluence's optimistic versioning and advising a pre-read. It could also mention failure modes on version conflict or that unspecified optional fields are not updated, but the core concurrency behavior is clearly surfaced.

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 sentences with no filler; the primary operation is stated first and the critical concurrency warning follows immediately. Every clause adds information the agent needs before calling the tool.

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?

The description covers the main success path and the essential optimistic-versioning constraint, and points the agent to a read-before-update strategy. However, for a mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, it omits guidance on optional fields, representation formats, draft/current status, and conflict behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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 0% and there are 11 parameters; the description only clarifies version_number ('explicit current version') and identifies body/title as the main update targets. Optional parameters such as representation, status, parent_id, and max_chars receive no semantic guidance, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names and schema constraints alone.

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 names a specific action ('Update a page body and title'), a distinct resource, and a required precondition (explicit current version number). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool confluence_update_page_title, which handles title-only updates.

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?

It gives an actionable guideline: read the page first when unsure, because Confluence uses optimistic versioning. It does not enumerate exact conditions for choosing this over update_page_title or create_page, but the body-and-title scope and version requirement are sufficient context for most routing decisions.

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