Add Label

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=false, so the non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds the acceptable target types (pages, blog posts, attachments), but it does not disclose details like duplicate-label handling or permission requirements. This is acceptable for a simple add operation, but not exceptionally transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, and the bullet list adds practical context without excessive padding. It is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, but each bullet earns its place by clarifying real use cases.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully described schema and an output schema present, the description covers the target types and use cases adequately. A note about duplicate-label behavior or idempotency would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description reinforces why labels are useful, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add label to Confluence content (pages, blog posts, or attachments).' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from read-only label retrieval tools like confluence_get_labels and from other content mutations like confluence_add_comment.

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 'Useful for' bullets provide concrete application contexts such as categorizing attachments, tracking status, and filtering content. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use cases are clear enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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