Lagre til Tua

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive write. The description usefully adds that provenance (source, project, conversation, time) is attached automatically and that there is deliberately no folder hierarchy, which is real context beyond the annotations. It omits, however, the key-collision replacement behavior — that is buried in the schema's 'key' description, not in the tool description.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then followed by the two most important call constraints. No filler, though the 'no folder — that's the whole point' aside is personality rather than instruction.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no idempotency guarantee, the description covers the input contract well but says nothing about what comes back. With no output schema to lean on, the return value (e.g. the created or replaced atom id/version) should have been described.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine call-shaping rules: put the ENTIRE content in 'content', always provide 'short', and add 'medium' when content exceeds ~3000 characters. That sizing guidance goes beyond restating the schema and directly affects how the agent invokes the tool.

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 and resource: save content as an 'atom' in the Tua archive, with provenance auto-attached and no folder to choose. This is much sharper than a tautology, but it never contrasts itself with the closest siblings (tua_import, tua_compose), so the agent gets purpose but not sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied (save a piece of AI output or other content), and it gives operational rules about always sending 'short' and sending 'medium' past ~3000 chars. However it never says when to prefer tua_save over tua_import, tua_compose, or tua_link, and gives no exclusion criteria, so the when-to-use dimension is left to inference.

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