confluence_replace_mention

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the multi-step process (fetch, search, lookup, swap, push) and mentions partial matching for find_user. It is transparent about the behavior, though it could mention implications like version history or irreversibility.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a concise overview of steps, and parameter explanations. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary words, though it could be more streamlined.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient information for an AI agent to understand the tool's function, parameters, and behavior. It covers the core aspects, though additional details on return values or edge cases would enhance completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable context for all three parameters: page_id accepts numeric IDs or URLs, find_user uses partial match, and replace_user is searched in Confluence users. This meaningfully supplements the 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 tool's purpose: replacing @mentions of one user with another on a Confluence page. It specifies the action, resource, and mechanism, distinguishing it from sibling tools like confluence_find_replace.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It describes the process but lacks guidance on preconditions or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name and description alone.

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