trmnl_copy_plugin_setting

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the description's job is lighter. It adds genuine context beyond them: the new instance inherits settings and markup, is automatically renamed with a '[Copy] ' prefix, and the tool 'answers it' — details an agent could not derive from the annotations. It stops short of saying whether the copy is immediately active/scheduled or what permissions are required.

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?

The first two sentences are tight and front-loaded with the essential behavior. The trailing two sentences ('Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope.') are generic boilerplate that partially restates the annotations rather than earning their place.

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, the description should ideally say what comes back — presumably the new plugin setting's id — but it says only that it 'answers it'. Everything else needed to invoke it (target id, resulting name, mutation semantics) is covered, so the remaining gap is small.

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 50%, with the nested 'path' object carrying no description and only path.id and profile documented inline. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all — no indication that `path` wraps the source id or what `profile` changes about the copy. Baseline 3 is the right ceiling here.

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 ('Copy a plugin setting') and immediately specifies the outcome: a new instance with the same settings and markup, named '[Copy] <name>'. The endpoint reference (POST /api/plugin_settings/{id}/copies) removes any ambiguity about what object is created, distinguishing it from create_plugin_setting or the playlist duplicate siblings.

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 only implied ('Copy a plugin setting' obviously applies when a duplicate is wanted), and the closing 'Run only within the user-authorized scope' is generic safety boilerplate rather than selection guidance. It never contrasts with trmnl_create_plugin_setting, trmnl_import_plugin_setting_files, or trmnl_duplicate_playlist_item, so the agent must infer when a copy beats a fresh create.

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