Add Inline Comment

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, indicating modification. The description adds that the tool raises ValueError in read-only mode or if the Confluence client is unavailable, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not detail behaviors such as what happens if the text selection is not found.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is front-loaded but slightly verbose; a more concise version could omit redundant parameter details already covered by the schema.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and detailed schema coverage, the description adequately explains the return value (JSON string) and error conditions. It covers all essential aspects: action, inputs, output, and failure modes, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description's docstring repeats this information without adding significant new semantics. The function signature and argument descriptions align with the schema, but no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides is introduced.

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 the action ('add an inline comment anchored to a text selection on a page'), specifying the resource (page) and the unique anchoring aspect. This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'confluence_add_comment' which adds a general comment.

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 implies usage for adding a comment anchored to specific text, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'confluence_add_comment' or 'confluence_reply_to_comment'. No exclusion criteria or contextual prerequisites are provided.

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