confluence_watcher_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return format ('Returns YAML {watching: true}') and the default behavior for account_id. However, it omits any mention of side effects (e.g., idempotency, permission requirements, or potential errors) that could be relevant for a mutation operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action. It includes the key usage detail (default account), the return value, and a CLI equivalence. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose, default behavior, and return format. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., error handling, idempotency) but these are not critical for the core use case, and the CLI mirror provides a reference point.

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 description adds minimal new parameter meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates the account_id default (already in schema) and refers to content_id as a page ID (already in schema). No additional syntax or format details are provided.

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 action: 'Add a watcher to a Confluence page'. This is a specific verb+resource, and the mention of 'Confluence page' distinguishes it from Jira watcher tools like jira_watcher_add. The scope is 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to add a watcher to a Confluence page) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like confluence_watcher_remove and confluence_watcher_status are not referenced, so the agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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