confluence_add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that it raises ValueError in read-only mode or when the client is unavailable, and states the return format. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or other failure conditions beyond these, so a 3.

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 compact and well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Each sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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 simplicity (2 params), a full output schema, and the inclusion of error conditions, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention page existence checks, but that's a minor gap.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for page_id and content, with 100% coverage. The description repeats this information but adds no additional semantic details; the mention of ctx is an internal context parameter not part of the user-facing schema.

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 'Add a comment to a Confluence page,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_add_comment and confluence_add_label.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to add comments to Confluence pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Confluence' qualifier differentiates it from Jira comment tools, giving a clear context without exclusions.

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