confluence_add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting details such as permission requirements, side effects, whether the comment is appended, or what response to expect. The schema's description of Markdown-to-ADF conversion is not replicated in the description, but the description adds no new 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 sentence of six words, directly stating the purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects) and the presence of detailed parameter descriptions in the schema, the minimal description is marginally adequate. However, it lacks information on return values or success confirmation, which would be helpful for an agent since no output schema exists.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions. Both parameters are adequately described in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('a comment to a Confluence page'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'confluence_get_comments', 'confluence_update_comment', and 'confluence_delete_comment' by focusing on the add operation.

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 (e.g., get, update, delete). It does not mention prerequisites, such as the requirement that the page must exist, or when to use it instead of Jira add comment tools.

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