trmnl_start_refresh

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

Annotations already state that this is not read-only, is open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: asynchronous refresh semantics, branch-specific outcomes, and the concrete POST endpoint. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and the two behavioral branches. The endpoint and safety line are useful, though somewhat technical. It is appropriately sized with little wasted text.

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 non-idempotent, async mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains the important result shape: whether a job_id is returned and how to poll it. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around profile semantics and failure behavior.

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 50%, and the description reinforces the plugin_setting_id path parameter by showing it in the endpoint template. However, it adds no meaning for the profile parameter beyond what the schema already says. This is adequate but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: refresh a plugin instance. It goes beyond the name by distinguishing polling private plugins, which refetch their URL and return a job_id, from other instances, which queue a render and return no job_id.

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?

It clearly indicates when the tool is used and how to continue polling via getRefresh when a job_id is returned. It also gives a safety boundary: run only within the user-authorized scope. It does not explicitly name when not to use this versus related plugin-setting mutation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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