conf_add_comment

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, open-world, non-idempotent mutation. The description does not explain what side effects occur (notifications, permissions, or what "destructive" means for a comment) or what the operation returns, so it adds little behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is brief, front-loaded, and free of filler. Its terseness is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important usage and parameter details unstated.

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 mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description is too sparse. It should at least clarify pageId, the required body format more concretely, and the practical consequences of adding a 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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It usefully specifies that body uses storage XHTML, but pageId is left unexplained, and the exact XHTML expectations or constraints are not detailed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Add comment") and adds the body format ("storage XHTML"). It clearly differs from the read-oriented sibling conf_get_comments, though it does not explain the relationship to other write tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to add a comment versus using other tools, no prerequisites such as authentication or page permissions, and no exclusions. The only usage-relevant detail is the required XHTML body format.

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