atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The annotations include 'destructiveHint: true,' indicating a write operation, which the description aligns with by describing a reply action. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that it returns 'JSON string representing the created reply comment' and raises 'ValueError: If in read-only mode or Confluence client is unavailable,' providing context about potential errors and output format that annotations do not cover.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by args, returns, and raises sections. It is appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the 'ctx' parameter in args is not explained in the description, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with destructiveHint), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and error conditions. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values, and annotations provide safety context. However, it could improve by clarifying usage relative to siblings for better agent guidance.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('comment_id' and 'body') in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'Markdown format' for the body, but this is already covered in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Reply to an existing comment thread') and resource ('on a Confluence page'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'confluence_add_comment' (which creates a new comment) and 'jira_add_comment' (which is for Jira). The verb 'reply' precisely indicates responding to an existing comment rather than creating a new one.

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,' suggesting it should be used when there's a parent comment to respond to. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confluence_add_comment' or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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