manage_comments

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

No annotations are provided. Description does not disclose that add_footer and reply are mutation operations with side effects, nor does it mention any behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits.

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?

One sentence that is concise but omits half the available actions, making it incomplete. It is not well-structured for a multi-action tool.

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 7 parameters and 5 actions, the description is too thin. No output schema, no return value info, and missing write actions make it inadequate for full understanding.

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%, so the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond listing action names, but does not conflict with schema. 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?

Description states 'Unified tool for Confluence comments' and lists three actions (list_footer, list_inline, get_replies), but omits the write actions (add_footer, reply) that are present in the schema. This gives a partial purpose, enough to distinguish from sibling tools but incomplete.

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?

No guidance on when to use which action or when to avoid this tool. No mention of alternatives or context for choosing between read vs write operations.

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