Reply to Comment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate mutability. It adds context by mentioning ValueError for read-only mode or client unavailability. However, it lacks details on permissions, ID validation, or concurrency behavior.

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 concise and structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. It avoids unnecessary text, though it could be slightly more streamlined by integrating parameters inline.

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 low complexity of a reply tool, the description covers key aspects: parameters, return type (JSON string), and error conditions. It is complete enough for basic use, though it could mention idempotency or the format of the comment ID.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter descriptions from the schema (e.g., 'Markdown format' for body). It adds minimal extra value beyond what is already in the schema, though the returns and raises sections provide some context.

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 ('Reply to') and the resource ('an existing comment thread on a Confluence page'). The title and description differentiate it from sibling tools like 'confluence_add_comment' (which adds a top-level comment) and 'confluence_get_comments' (read operation).

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 by specifying 'Reply to an existing comment thread', distinguishing it from adding a new comment. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, leaving some room for interpretation. The distinction from 'confluence_add_comment' is clear but not spelled out.

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