trmnl_import_plugin_setting_files

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the description adds the genuinely useful part: replace semantics with per-file retention ("a markup file left out keeps its current content") and the required settings.yml. It does not say what happens to files of other types that are omitted, leaving the destructive scope slightly under-specified.

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?

Tight: purpose first, sibling comparison and required-file rule second, endpoint third. The closing "Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope." is generic boilerplate that earns little, but it is short.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the crucial retention rule and required file, which is what an agent needs to avoid data loss. Still absent is any statement about whether omitting non-markup files deletes them, which is the main residual risk given destructiveHint=true.

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 33% and the `files` map is an undescribed additionalProperties object, so the description carries real weight by explaining it is a filename-to-text mapping. `profile` and `path.plugin_setting_id` are covered by schema descriptions, so nothing critical is missing, though the description does not state how filenames/paths are formed.

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 ("Replace the files of a private plugin") and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling trmnl_upload_plugin_setting_archive by contrasting the input form (zipped archive vs. text by filename). An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (uploadPluginSettingArchive) and the condition that separates them (zipped archive vs per-filename text), plus a hard prerequisite that settings.yml is required. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when' rule or auth/scope guidance, which keeps it below a 5.

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