trmnl_remove_plugin_setting_featured_image

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it names the concrete effect on the recipe listing and cites the underlying DELETE endpoint, though 'changes remote state or starts work' is boilerplate that adds nothing.

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?

The core is front-loaded in one useful sentence, but the trailing 'Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope.' are generic boilerplate that do not earn their place against annotations that already flag this as destructive.

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 delete with good annotation coverage, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description supplies the outcome and endpoint. It is nearly complete; only the set-versus-remove decision context is missing.

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 the nested path.id and the profile parameter already carry descriptions in the schema. The description only echoes {id} via the endpoint path and adds no format, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (remove featured image of a plugin setting) and explains the visible consequence (listing falls back to a screenshot). It does not name the sibling inverse tool trmnl_set_plugin_setting_featured_image, so an agent gets the meaning but not the routing hint.

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?

The only usage guidance is the generic 'Run only within the user-authorized scope' boilerplate. There is no statement of when to remove versus when to set the image, nor any prerequisite or confirmation guidance for a destructive operation, even though the inverse sibling exists.

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