confluence_add_anchor_block_to_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the anchors are 'invisible', which is useful, but it lacks information about side effects (e.g., modifications to the page), required permissions, failure states (e.g., heading not found), and return value. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, purpose, and advantage. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is brief. It explains the core purpose but lacks guidance on usage context, error handling, and what the tool returns. For a page-modifying operation, more context would be beneficial, but the description is minimally adequate for an AI agent to infer basic usage.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only explains the overall purpose. No per-parameter details or clarifications are given in the description.

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 ('Insert invisible start/end anchor macros') and the resource ('around a heading-based section'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting the benefit: 'so later updates can target a stable block instead of relying on heading matching', distinguishing it from other update tools.

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 implies when to use this tool (when stable targeting is needed), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives among the sibling tools. No 'when not to use' or 'prefer X instead' guidance is given.

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