trmnl_push_fleet

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real context: the operation is queued rather than synchronous, each mirror inherits a copy of the master playlist plus settings, and it changes remote state. It stops short of saying whether repeat calls stack duplicate pushes or how the queue behaves.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope in the first line, followed by the concrete effect and the endpoint. The final sentence is generic boilerplate but only one line; overall it is tight and well-ordered.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what state changes, that work is queued asynchronously, and that it is fleet-wide. Missing pieces are minor: return value shape and whether the push is per-mirror or a single fleet job.

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 50%, but both actual parameters (installation_id, profile) carry schema descriptions, including the profile default. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior beyond referring to 'the whole fleet'; the nested path object is not explained further.

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 with scope: push the master playlist to every mirror, queueing one push for the whole fleet. The 'every mirror' / 'whole fleet' framing implicitly separates it from the per-device sibling trmnl_push_fleet_device, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Implies usage ('queues one push for the whole fleet') and adds a vague safety caveat ('Run only within the user-authorized scope'), but never says when to prefer this over trmnl_push_fleet_device or what prerequisites (e.g., a master must be set via trmnl_set_fleet_master) exist.

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