Confluence Add Page Comment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Add' (a mutation) and 'markdown' (format), but nothing about side effects, idempotency, permissions, error behavior, or whether it appends to existing comments. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, it may be too sparse given the lack of annotations, but for sheer conciseness it earns a 4.

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 two string parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally sufficient. It states the operation and target. However, it omits prerequisites, error conditions, and any specifics about the returned data. The output schema could cover return values, but it's not provided, so the description alone feels incomplete.

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. It hints that 'body' is the comment content in markdown and 'page_id' is the target page, but it doesn't explicitly define either parameter. No constraints, formats, or examples are given, leaving agents to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 clearly states the action (add) and the target (a footer comment to a page). It is specific enough to distinguish from creating or updating pages, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The term 'footer comment' adds specificity, but the description doesn't mention how this differs from other comment tools like jira_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., page existence), or compare with sibling tools like confluence_update_page or jira_add_comment. The context is implied but not explicit.

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