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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the completion is idempotent and must target the same space used for setup. However, it does not explain what destructive state change actually occurs when completing the bootstrap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint. It contains minor redundancy around 'same space used for setup' but every sentence contributes meaningful constraints or context.

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 single-parameter idempotent completion call with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, prerequisite conditions, idempotency, and target-space constraint. It does not describe the return value or the precise state effects, but the complexity is low enough that this is acceptable.

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% and the targetSpaceId parameter is already well described, including the auth_verify workflow. The description adds an important extra semantic constraint: the space must match the one verified/used for setup, which goes beyond the schema alone.

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 ('complete') and resource ('first-Space agent bootstrap' / 'starter initialization'), and includes the exact endpoint. It is distinct from the listed sibling tools, none of which overlap with bootstrap completion.

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 explicitly says 'Call only after the starter structure and records have been written and read back successfully' and requires targetSpaceId to match the verified setup space. Combined with the schema's instruction to call auth_verify first, the invocation conditions are unambiguous.

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