Add Inline Comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the behavior of being anchored to a text selection. However, the description doesn't disclose additional behavioral details such as requirements for exact text matching or potential side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

This is a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 full schema coverage, the destructiveHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the short description is sufficient. It could mention prerequisites like exact text match, but the schema already covers that, so the description adequately supports the tool's 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter meanings. It adds no value beyond the schema, thus the baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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 'Add an inline comment anchored to a text selection on a page,' which clearly specifies the verb (Add), the resource (inline comment), and the unique anchoring to a text selection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like confluence_add_comment and confluence_reply_to_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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when an inline comment needs to be attached to specific text on a page. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'anchored to a text selection' phrasing provides unambiguous context for when this tool should be selected over a general comment tool.

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