Add Inline Comment

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

The annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, so the mutation aspect is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the comment is anchored to a text selection, but it does not disclose side effects, anchoring failure behavior, or permission requirements. There is no direct contradiction with the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential behavior immediately and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a relatively simple creation tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description sufficiently captures the core action and anchoring model. It lacks only explicit guidance about alternative tools and edge-case matching behavior, which are minor gaps.

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 all parameters already carry adequate documentation. The description only restates the text_selection concept and adds no new meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('inline comment') with an explicit anchoring constraint ('text selection on a page'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like confluence_add_comment and makes the tool's purpose 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 implies when to use the tool — when commenting on a specific passage of text — but it never explicitly states why to prefer it over confluence_add_comment or confluence_reply_to_comment, and provides no exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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