confluence_comment_add_inline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses error conditions ('Errors if the anchor does not match or `match_index` is out of range'), exact-match requirement for `anchor_text`, and mutual exclusivity of `content`/`content_path`. This goes beyond the bare operation, though it does not describe return values or permissions.

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?

Four sentences with no filler. First sentence defines purpose, second gives sibling differentiation, third covers parameter constraints, fourth states error behavior. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 5 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, parameter relationships, and error behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it omits explicit return-value details.

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 value by explaining the `content` vs `content_path` mutual exclusion and the 1-based `match_index` disambiguation rule, which are not fully captured in 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 'Post a markdown comment anchored to a text selection on a Confluence page' — a specific verb and resource. It explicitly contrasts with sibling `confluence_comment_add` for page-level comments, making differentiation unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly directs when to choose the alternative: 'For a page-level comment not tied to any text, use `confluence_comment_add` instead.' It also explains parameter selection trade-offs between `content` and `content_path`, and when `match_index` is needed.

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