urai_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Merge' implies it may modify or overwrite existing configuration files, but the description never says what is written, whether existing user settings are preserved or clobbered, or what happens on a repeat run. The disclosure that dry_run defaults to true is the one genuinely useful behavioral fact.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the default-value note. Brevity here comes at the cost of coverage rather than padding, so it is efficient but thin.

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?

A config-writing tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs considerably more detail than two sentences. An agent cannot predict whether calling it is safe against an existing project, nor what 'set_default' or 'project' will change.

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 0%, so all four parameters rely on the description. It supplies the dry_run default (absent from the schema) and its artifact list loosely maps to the target enum, but 'project' and 'set_default' are left entirely unexplained despite controlling scope and persistent state changes.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource pair ('Generate/merge ... configuration') and enumerates the artifacts touched (OpenCode, Kiro, skill config), so an agent can tell this is the setup/bootstrap tool rather than one of the chat, check, or health siblings. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like urai_refresh, which may overlap in writing configuration.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says whether this is a first-run bootstrap step, whether it should be run before urai_chat, or how it relates to urai_refresh. The only actionable hint is the dry_run default, which is a footnote rather than usage direction.

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