trmnl_download_plugin_setting_archive

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: the response is a zip rather than JSON, its contents are described, unauthenticated access is allowed for published recipes, authenticated access extends to private plugins, and another user's recipe leaves polling_headers and polling_body empty.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and return format, then moves efficiently through auth behavior, the empty-polling-fields caveat, and the endpoint. Every line contributes useful information without redundant restatement.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the returned zip contents and auth-dependent access behavior. It is nearly complete for invocation, though it still omits any explanation of the optional profile parameter's effect.

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?

The endpoint notation '/api/plugin_settings/{id}/archive' reinforces the schema's 'Plugin setting ID' meaning for path.id. However, the description does not explain the optional profile parameter or add much beyond the existing schema descriptions; with 50% schema description coverage, this is minimum viable.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Download a plugin setting archive.' It immediately distinguishes the result from JSON-based siblings by saying it returns a zip with settings.yml, .liquid files, and shared.liquid.

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 gives clear auth-dependent usage context: unauthenticated users can archive any published recipe, while authenticated users can also archive their private plugins. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as trmnl_upload_plugin_setting_archive or trmnl_get_plugin_setting_files, so it provides context but not full when-vs-alternative routing.

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