Add Confluence page comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the comment is authored 'as the authenticated user' (implying auth attribution), but says nothing about where the comment lands, whether it is editable/deletable afterwards, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a mutation tool with undocumented parameters.

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?

No output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description carries the full burden of explaining inputs and results — and it does not. For a write tool whose required payload is a raw storage-format body, failing to explain format expectations leaves the agent likely to call it incorrectly.

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% and the description only vaguely gestures at contentId via 'content item'. The critical 'bodyStorage' parameter is completely unexplained — an agent has no way to know from either the schema or the description that it expects Confluence storage-format XHTML.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment') scoped to a Confluence content item, which clearly separates it from the sibling read tools like confluence_list_comments. It does not, however, explicitly mention the sibling it complements (list_comments) or distinguish header/footer vs. inline 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus confluence_rest, confluence_update_page, or when commenting is inappropriate. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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