Add Comment

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description adds little beyond stating the mutation itself. It does not mention response format, permissions, whether the comment is appended to existing ones, or any side effects. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool's basic function, offering minimal additional behavioral context.

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 clear sentence that directly states the purpose without any redundancy or extra fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple nature of the tool (two well-documented parameters, an output schema present, no nested objects), the one-line description is mostly sufficient. However, it falls short on clarifying the distinction from reply/inline comment tools and lacks usage guidance, but these are minor given the low complexity.

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% for both page_id and body, so the structured schema fully documents the parameters. The tool description itself adds no extra semantics, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'Add a comment to a Confluence page' clearly identifies the action (add) and the resource (Confluence page), which is specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'reply to comment' or 'add inline comment' by using the generic 'add a comment', but it does not explicitly state that it adds a top-level comment, so it doesn't fully disambiguate from all sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like confluence_reply_to_comment or confluence_add_inline_comment. There are no contextual tips or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the simple action alone.

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