Add Comment

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It simply says 'add a comment' without explaining whether this creates a top-level comment, whether it replaces or complements inline/reply comments, what side effects occur, or whether special permissions are required. This is thin for a write operation.

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 single, clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool and front-loads the primary action immediately.

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?

The tool is simple, parameters are fully described by the schema, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, the description omits usage context relative to closely related sibling tools, which leaves an agent without enough guidance to reliably choose this tool over reply_to_comment or add_inline_comment.

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%, so both page_id and body are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable because the schema does the heavy lifting. The baseline of 3 applies here.

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 a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('a comment'), and target ('a Confluence page'), so an agent knows the basic operation. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like confluence_reply_to_comment or confluence_add_inline_comment, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reply_to_comment or add_inline_comment. It does not state whether this creates a top-level comment, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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