Velg hvor Tua-arkivet skal ligge

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

With annotations declaring a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write, the description adds real context: the selection is persisted to ~/.tua/config.json, and a «Tua» folder is created containing a welcome atom and an Inbox. It does not say what happens when re-run or whether an existing archive is touched, which is the only meaningful gap.

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-loads the primary action, then the critical constraint (never guess), then the no-argument behavior, then persistence details. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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, zero-required setup tool with no output schema, the agent has everything it needs: when to invoke it, what each argument selects, the no-argument fallback, side effects, and where state is stored.

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 both sti and sted are already fully documented, including the enum values and the absolute-path constraint. The description restates the same set of locations and the custom-path alternative but adds no format or precedence rules beyond it, 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 specific action (choose/create the archive folder) with exact scope: first run, five named backends or a custom path. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tua_save or tua_import, which operate on the archive rather than configuring it.

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?

Explicit when-to-use with an exclusion: call ONLY after the user has chosen (an answer to an «oppsett:»-line), never guess. It also documents the zero-argument mode (list existing locations and current selection) and notes the choice can be changed later via settings, covering the main alternative path.

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