confluence_create_blog_post_footer_comment

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

The description clearly reveals the output trimming behavior (dropping _links, _expandable, body content) and how to bypass it with full=true. With no annotations provided, this disclosure is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or whether the comment is attached to the latest version.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second explains output behavior. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the response format (trimmed vs raw). It covers creation intent and output behavior adequately, though it could mention where the comment appears (e.g., immediately under the blog post).

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the impact of the 'full' parameter on response trimming, which is not evident from the schema alone. This goes beyond the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Create a footer comment') and the target resource ('on a blog post'). The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguously identified, distinguishing it from related tools like page footer 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating page footer comments, retrieving comments). The context is only implied by the tool name, leaving the agent without clear decision rules.

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