confluence_comment_audit

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it explains that anchors do NOT follow text edits, describes failure modes (torn, drifted, mark_lost), confirms the tool is read-only, and details the YAML output including statuses and suggested_new_anchor. This goes beyond simple operation to explain the underlying mechanism.

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 moderately long but every sentence is information-dense: problem statement, mechanism, output format, status values, and alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and ends with a mirror reference, with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the YAML contents (status, original/current anchored text, suggested_new_anchor). It also covers the conceptual context (why drift happens) and references a sibling tool, making it complete for a single-parameter audit tool.

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 only parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Confluence page ID.' The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond already using 'page' in the text, so it does not exceed the schema's coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Audit every inline comment on a Confluence page for anchor drift.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by describing its diagnostic role and explicitly naming the pairing tool 'confluence_comment_reanchor' for fixes.

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 provides explicit usage context: it diagnoses anchor drift issues. It also states 'Read-only — fix drift with `confluence_comment_reanchor`,' directly telling the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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