trmnl_get_installation_configuration_choices

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

The description specifies a POST to a resolver endpoint whose body carries 'set'/'unset'/'clear_secret' draft ops plus a revision, i.e. a state-changing operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. That is a direct conflict, and beyond it the description says nothing about revision-conflict behavior, concurrency, or permissions.

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?

Two short lines with the action front-loaded and the raw endpoint following, so the size and ordering are good. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere.

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 nested-body, revision-based mutation request with no output schema, the description should explain at minimum how revision guards the update and what a resolution result looks like. Neither is covered, and the annotations actively mislead.

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 only 33% and the description does nothing to compensate: the nested body (revision, draft ops, query, cursor) and the profile parameter are never explained. The only semantic help is the URL template, which names the two path parameters plugin_installation_id and resolver_id.

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 says it 'resolve[s] pending configuration choices', which is a concrete verb+resource, but it conflicts with the name prefix 'get' and gives no way to tell it apart from nearby siblings like trmnl_get_installation_configuration or trmnl_evaluate_installation_configuration. An agent cannot determine from the text whether this reads or mutates configuration.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus trmnl_get_plugin_configuration_choices, trmnl_get_installation_configuration, or trmnl_evaluate_plugin_configuration. Preconditions (a pending resolver, a valid revision) are not mentioned.

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