trmnl_create_plugin_setting

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation; the description adds that the call changes remote state or starts work and should stay within authorized scope. That is useful authorization context, though it remains generic and does not describe side effects or return behavior.

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?

Four short lines front-load the action, then cover prerequisite/next step, endpoint, and safety caution. No sentence is redundant, though the final caution is somewhat generic.

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 non-destructive mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the description supplies the key create workflow and authorization caution, while annotations cover safety. It still leaves body.name/profile semantics and the response shape unaddressed, so it is not fully 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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description helps by naming listPlugins as the source of plugin_id and by deferring other fields to updatePluginSettingFields. However, it does not explain the required body.name field or the optional profile parameter, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Create a new plugin setting', and identifies the prerequisite tool (listPlugins for plugin_id) plus the follow-up tool (updatePluginSettingFields). This helps separate it from read/update/delete siblings, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from alternatives like create_my_plugin or update_plugin_setting.

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 clearly says where plugin_id comes from and that fields are applied later via updatePluginSettingFields, giving an agent the setup workflow. It does not state when to avoid this tool versus update_plugin_setting or other create alternatives, so exclusions are absent.

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