add_confluence_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the action of adding/replying to a comment, but does not disclose permission requirements, side effects, return values, or any limitations. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the secondary capability is stated briefly without redundancy.

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 simple tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the necessary action and optional reply use case. However, there is no output schema and no annotation, so the agent is left without expectations for return values, errors, or permissions. The description is adequate but not complete.

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 fully documents all parameters and their meanings. The description's mention of replying adds marginal clarity to the parentCommentId parameter, but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a comment to a Confluence page,' which clearly identifies the tool's core function. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling add_jira_comment by specifying Confluence, and adds the secondary purpose of replying to existing comments.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool—adding or replying to a Confluence comment—but does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives. The sibling list includes add_jira_comment, but the description does not reference it or provide exclusionary guidance.

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