trmnl_set_plugin_setting_featured_image

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial context: it queues a render, takes no body, limits concurrency per instance, and explains that duplicate requests during a run queue nothing. It also states the endpoint and cautions to run only within authorized scope.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the concurrency note is useful. The endpoint line and generic 'Changes remote state or starts work' paragraph are slightly boilerplate but not bloated.

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 that starts queued work, the description covers purpose, concurrency, and state change, but it does not say what the call returns or how to observe completion. With no output schema, that return/async-tracking information is a meaningful gap.

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 schema documents both leaf parameters, but coverage is only 50% and the description does not explain the required path/id structure or the optional profile parameter beyond showing {id} in the endpoint. It adds essentially no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb (Generate) and resource (marketplace preview image of a plugin setting), and the next sentence explains the resulting effect. It is distinguishable from trmnl_remove_plugin_setting_featured_image by the set/generate action, but it does not explicitly name that sibling as the alternative.

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 description implies use when the recipe listing image needs refreshing, but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tools such as upload or remove. It adds constraints like 'Takes no body' and single-generation-at-a-time, which are behavioral rather than selection guidance.

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