confluence_comment_reanchor

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions key behavioral traits: operates entirely on ADF without round-tripping through JFM (preserving marks), and supports dry_run for validation. But does not disclose if the operation is reversible, what happens to the old anchor, or required 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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose. Sentences are informative but not excessively verbose. Some technical details (JFM, ADF) could be in a separate note, but overall concise and well-structured.

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 does not explain return format or error handling. It covers usage context, parameter details, and dry_run behavior. Lacks information on what is returned on success/failure, making it slightly incomplete for an agent to fully assess the tool's output.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that match_index disambiguates occurrences, anchor_text must be exact and can span multiple runs but not block boundaries, and dry_run is for validation. This nuance goes beyond the schema 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?

Clearly states the action: 'Move an inline comment's anchor to a new run of text'. Identifies the specific resource (Confluence page ADF) and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it is the fix for 'drifted'/'mark_lost' comments flagged by confluence_comment_audit.

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 states the precise scenario for use: fixing comments flagged by confluence_comment_audit. Implicitly implies not to use for other comment operations. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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