I feel Confucianism is primarily aimed at minimising succession crisees, as discussed here:
Are there opposites to the "social contract theory" where humans are regarded as naturally social beings, and yet individualism is a human invention?
We can think of this in terms of game theory: as maintaining an unstable equilibrium with net benefits, over a stable equilibrium with waves of destruction.
Succession has been a really major problem in human history. The Maya could have resisted the Spanish far better but for being in a civil war over succession. The War Of The Roses caused lasting havoc in England. And many many more.
The founding myth of China is the Gun Yu flood, linked to post-Ice Age meltwater being released. And a farming style of rice and millet that required continued irrigation projects, & planting & harvesting together, which Jonathan Haidt links to the need for collaborative ethics (vs pastoralists who build wealth with a herd that can be lost in one raid, focusing on a small group or individual's ability to deter that). Nearly all rebellions and civil wars in China can be linked to climatic conditions, and managing floods and droughts was key to political continuity always.
Geographically China, is a large area isolated by the largest mountain range in the world, but connected internally by several very large navigable rivers. Unlike Europe, with many natural barriers, eg areas of Germania even the Romans struggled to access, an internal sea, & many archipelagos. This and it's connection to the relatively continuous political unity of the Chinese state, is considered to answer the Needham Question, why China saw invention of the cornerstones of the modern age (gunpowder compass canals, as defined by Francis Bacon) but it didn't begin there. You can point really directly to Confucianism as a problem there preventing cultural change, while religious/philosophical (& political) disunity allowed innovations in Europe (charging interest, usury, is clearly banned in the bible, but credit became too crucual to winning wars). For instance, the ending of Chinese exploration with the Treasure Ships Voyages could happen by fiat, vs the mess of colonial jockeying by European powers that saw many strategies tried at once.
So what about the positives? Civil wars in China have been exceptionally bloody. The Three Kingdoms War at the end of the Han Dynasty saw 40 million dead, the bloodiest conflict until World War Two. The war at the transition from the Ming to the Ching saw 25 million dead. Confucius' teachings were already 250+ years old by the time the Yellow Emperor unified China for the first time. His dynasty barely lasted longer than his own lifetime, and he killed many Confucian scholars for disagreeing with his policy on granting fiefs (decentralising a fraction, basically). The Han dynasty, saw the only peasant to become emperor, a truly able administrator, who completely embraced Confucianism, using soft power instead of the Qin mode which relied fundamentally on one military leader & fell apart on succession. That led in the Tang Dynasty to the Imperial Examination system, and a bureaucracy that lasted 1300 years, and in it's time was almost uniquely effective.
So that's the context I see Confucius arising from, and being needed for. A culture of unusual unity for climatic & geographic reasons, where conflict was always exceptionally costly. Making continuity extra valuable.
Whether it is good, is like asking if the I Ching is good - it simply is the basis of Chinese culture, and crucial to understanding it. I think Plato's politics are really troubling, but his work is still foundational in Western thought.
I would relate Confucius to Solomon, as championing and exemplifying wisdom, dilemma-solving, over other values like bravery or martial prowess, representing a cultural shift or evolution in that sense, & symbolising that. It's notable Confucius espoused a version of The Golden Rule: "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself". And the 'Axial Age' framing links to a wider shift from sacrifice-focused religions & governance, to ethico-philosophical traditions.
Etiquette & aesthetics are largely out of fashion, but they are major shapers of society, that can reach far more people than philosophy, if there is a way for them to permeate a society. Rites, festivals celebrations, even spectacle, have been underecognised backbones of religions, which Durkheim drew attention to. Personally I think we need to rediscover this aspect of philosophy, and the conscious shaping of cultural life. So we should study Confucius.