Add Inline Comment

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world operation. The description adds the anchoring behavior, but it does not state permission requirements, failure behavior if the selected text does not match, or whether the comment can be edited/deleted later. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, for a five-parameter destructive operation, a slightly more structured description could improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is usage routing against sibling comment tools, which is a usage-guideline issue rather than an incompleteness in the core operation.

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 schema fully explains page_id, body, text_selection, and the match-count/index parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb (add) and a specific resource (inline comment), with the crucial qualifier that it is anchored to a text selection on a page. This distinguishes it from sibling general-comment tools like confluence_add_comment without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 mention of 'anchored to a text selection' implies when this tool applies rather than a general page comment, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent can infer the distinction but is not directly routed.

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