export_to_confluence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the most important trait: managed page bodies are replaced and manual edits are overwritten. That destructive/overwrite semantics plus the config prerequisite is exactly the kind of context an agent needs. It stops short of auth/permission or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences with no waste: artifact list first, overwrite semantics second, precondition last. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 6-param sync tool with no output schema, the description covers artifacts, destruction semantics, and the required prior call. It leaves out what happens on partial failure or how conflicts are handled, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including defaults for indexPageTitle, featurePagePrefix, and changelogPageTitle. The description mentions the page types those parameters map to but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (sync/export) and resource (concept map to Confluence) and enumerates the exact artifacts produced: index page, one page per feature, changelog page. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like mason_set_confluence (which configures rather than exports).

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Requires `mason_set_confluence` to have been called first') that tells the agent the ordering constraint. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative target, but the setup prerequisite is explicit and actionable.

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