confluence_create_footer_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the create operation and endpoint. It does not disclose permissions needed, whether the comment appends to existing footer comments, idempotency, or what the API returns on success or failure.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It omits essential context that an agent would need to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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 annotations and output schema, and only minimal schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of a footer comment, when to choose it over inline comments, or any behavioral consequences, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 only 33%, yet the description provides no parameter information at all. bodyValue and bodyRepresentation are left entirely unexplained, and even pageId gets no additional context beyond 'Page ID.' The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('footer comment'), and includes the exact API endpoint for precision. It is distinguishable from the sibling inline-comment creation tool, though it doesn't explicitly explain how footer comments differ from 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 about when to use this tool instead of the sibling confluence_create_inline_comment, nor any mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The description states what it does, but not when to invoke it.

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