trmnl_clear_plugin_setting_state

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the crucial nuance that the destruction is scoped to accumulated render state only — data and settings survive. That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool, and it is not recoverable from the annotations alone. It does not cover reversibility or return behavior, keeping 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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key preservation fact in two tight sentences, followed by the API endpoint for agents that map to REST. The line 'Changes remote state or starts work' is generic filler that adds nothing already stated.

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?

With no output schema and a nested-parameter schema, the description does well on effect (what is cleared, what survives) but leaves the `profile` scoping parameter and any response/error behavior unexplained. Adequate for a narrow state-clear mutation, but not complete.

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 50% and the description only echoes the endpoint path (/api/plugin_settings/{id}/state_clears), indirectly implying the nested path.id. It says nothing about the `profile` parameter or the nested path object shape, so it neither compensates for nor worsens the coverage gap; 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Clear the state a plugin setting has accumulated') with an explicit clarification of what is removed ('the trmnl.state a private plugin carries between renders') versus what persists ('Its data and settings stay'). This meaningfully separates it from siblings like trmnl_update_plugin_setting_data or trmnl_reset_plugin_setting_health, though those alternatives are never named.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the several adjacent reset/update/delete plugin-setting tools. The only guidance is a generic safety admonition ('Run only within the user-authorized scope'), which is boilerplate rather than routing guidance.

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