trmnl_create_my_plugin

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: the object lands in development/unpublished state, publishing is a separate review-gated step, and a developer-edition device is required. It does not say what happens on repeated calls or what identifier comes back, which for a non-idempotent create would have been valuable.

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 action is front-loaded and the lifecycle caveats are compact; the endpoint reference is a useful anchor. The trailing generic line ("Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope") is boilerplate that largely restates the annotations and eats space that parameter hints would have used better.

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?

Prerequisites and post-creation lifecycle are covered, which is the important half for a create tool. But with a 12-field required body and no output schema, the agent gets no signal about which fields matter, how to handle the returned plugin reference, or what the create-time defaults are.

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 only 50% over a nested 12-property body, and the description contributes nothing about any parameter — not name, category, refresh_every, the URL endpoints, or the profile selector. Several fields (name, description with maxLength 35, no_screen_padding, the three webhook URLs, knowledge_base_url) are undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ("Start a third-party plugin", POST /api/my_plugins) and pins down the lifecycle position: the plugin is created in development status and only published later from the dashboard. That distinguishes it adequately from trmnl_update_my_plugin and trmnl_list_my_plugins without naming them explicitly.

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?

It states a hard prerequisite ("Needs a developer edition device on the account") and explicitly rules out adjacent actions (publishing and icon upload happen in the dashboard, "not from here"). It lacks an explicit pointer to the follow-up tool for editing the created plugin, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not/alternatives routing.

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