Add Comment

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning that it raises ValueError in read-only mode or when client is unavailable. The existing destructiveHint annotation is consistent with the mutation, and the description does not contradict it.

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 full docstring, which includes structured Args and Returns sections. While clear and informative, it is slightly verbose for a tool description, but still efficiently presents key information.

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 create operation with two clear parameters and an output schema provided, the description covers all necessary information: what it does, how to use it, error conditions, and return format. No gaps remain.

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%, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions ('The ID of the page to add a comment to' and 'The comment content in Markdown format'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Add a comment to a Confluence page', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'confluence_reply_to_comment' (for replying to existing comments) and 'confluence_get_comments' (listing).

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confluence_reply_to_comment'. The usage is implied but not clearly defined, leaving room for ambiguity despite the straightforward action.

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