confluence_update_comment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral context, but it only states the mutation and hints at version inspection. It doesn't mention required permissions, whether the update overwrites the entire body, failure modes for missing comments, or any versioning side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a write 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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds a useful prerequisite hint without redundancy.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse for an agent to reliably make an informed call. It omits optional parameter semantics, expected return values, and behavioral caveats, so it is not fully complete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it only implies 'body' and 'comment_id'. It does not clarify the meaning or usage of 'max_chars' or 'representation', leaving gaps that the schema alone cannot fill.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('a footer comment body'), making it clear what the tool does. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'confluence_update_inline_comment' by targeting footer comments specifically.

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 guidance to use 'confluence_get_comment' first if the current version needs inspection, which is a useful alternative. However, it doesn't fully discuss when to use this tool over 'confluence_update_inline_comment' or other update variants, though the 'footer comment' scoping makes that largely inferable.

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