confluence_comment_add

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

Discloses that content is converted to ADF before posting, which is a key transformation. In absence of annotations, the description adds this behavioral detail. Does not cover error handling or return values, but sufficiently describes core behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each essential: defines action, clarifies input options, and directs to alternative tool. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 is adequate for the tool's simplicity but lacks information on return values (e.g., comment ID) since no output schema exists. Also omits prerequisites like page existence. Given the absence of annotations, this is a noticeable gap.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the mutual exclusivity of 'content' and 'content_path' and that 'content_path' is a filesystem path the server reads. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 'Post a markdown comment to a Confluence page as a page-level footer comment.' It differentiates from the sibling 'confluence_comment_add_inline' by specifying 'page-level footer comment' versus inline, and mentions the conversion to ADF.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'For inline (anchored) comments, use confluence_comment_add_inline' gives a clear alternative. Also explains the mutually exclusive parameters 'content' and 'content_path' with 'not both'. References the CLI mirror for cross-tool consistency.

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