mason_complete_init

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the two-file write behavior, the local-vs-shared split, and idempotency semantics ('repeated calls preserve the original setup time and existing settings'). It does not mention error behavior, permissions, or what happens if the files are missing, which keeps it short of 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 that front-load the primary action and file targets, then cover the optional marker semantics and parameter behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the third sentence overlaps with the schema description of confluenceConfigured.

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 two-parameter marker-writing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers destination files, idempotency, and conditional parameter behavior well. Only edge cases (write failures, missing directories, concurrent runs) are absent, which is a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, including 'omit to preserve the existing value' for confluenceConfigured. The description restates that preservation rule rather than adding new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 concrete verb and resource: recording assistant instruction setup as a completion marker, and names the exact files written (.mason/local/project.json and .mason/config.json). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling (e.g. mason_init or mason_set_confluence) to distinguish itself explicitly.

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 line 'Other tools work without this marker' implies this call is optional and not a prerequisite for the rest of the workflow, which is useful routing context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over mason_init or when to call it relative to the other tools, leaving the user to infer timing.

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