confluence_comment_add

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

With no annotations, the description discloses one behavioral detail: markdown is converted to ADF before posting. However, it omits other important traits like authentication requirements, error handling, or whether comments can be nested, which are critical for an agent to operate safely.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral note. No redundant text; the information is front-loaded and easy to parse. Every sentence is earned.

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?

The description covers basic action and conversion but lacks information on return values (e.g., comment ID, URL) and constraints (e.g., page permissions, depth of comments). Given no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete for safe and effective invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions already explain 'Markdown content...' and 'Confluence page ID.' The tool description adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the minimum but not exceeding.

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?

Description states specific action: 'Post a markdown comment to a Confluence page.' It differentiates from sibling tools like confluence_comment_list by focusing on adding, not listing. The conversion to ADF is explicit, clarifying the tool's unique behavior.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as confluence_write (for page content) or other comment tools. The description lacks when-not-to-use instructions or explicit context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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