mason_set_confluence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the persistence location (~/.mason/config.json), the security caveat about tokens appearing in chat history, and the validation-then-persist behavior. It does not describe failure modes for invalid credentials or whether a re-run overwrites existing config.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then numbered steps and a warning. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the prose is dense and the security warning could be marginally tighter.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers what the first call returns (list of spaces), what the second call does (persist), where state is stored, and a user-facing warning. An agent has everything needed to drive the flow correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter workflow meaning: which params must be identical across calls and that spaceKey presence toggles list-vs-persist mode. parentPageId is left to the schema alone, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Configure Confluence credentials') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling export_to_confluence by being a setup/credential tool. The two-step flow makes the operation's shape unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-call guidance: first call without spaceKey to validate and list spaces, second call with the same credentials plus spaceKey to persist. This is a precise conditional branching instruction no agent could infer otherwise.

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