confluence_create_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions the API version and bodyHtml format guidance, but does not disclose write/mutation effects beyond the verb 'create', nor does it cover permissions, authentication, rate limits, idempotency, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 compact sentences with no filler: the main action is first, followed by API version and a targeted usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter tool, the description covers the key bodyHtml constraint and API context. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the API returns (e.g., page ID or URL), which an agent might need to use the result. Overall adequate but not 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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful value by constraining bodyHtml to simple HTML tags (h2, p, ul, li, table), which helps the agent generate well-formed content beyond the schema's single example.

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 states a clear action: 'Confluence에 새 페이지를 생성합니다' (creates a new page in Confluence). This names both the verb and the resource, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_issue, though the 'Confluence' domain distinguishes it from the Jira-centric siblings.

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 usage context is implied: this is for creating Confluence pages, and the REST API v2 note plus bodyHtml instructions give some operational guidance. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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