trmnl_update_my_plugin

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, openWorld, not idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond them: PATCH partial-merge behavior, the hard constraint that status cannot be changed, and a scope restriction. It stops short of disclosing what the response returns or any permission requirements for third-party plugin ownership.

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?

Four short front-loaded lines with no redundancy; the merge rule and the status exclusion are surfaced first. The final sentence ("Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope.") reads as generic boilerplate that adds little for this specific tool.

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 with an 11-field nested body, openWorld access and no output schema, the definition covers the mutation model and one constraint but says nothing about authorization requirements for editing third-party plugins or what a successful change returns. An agent can call it, but with real gaps about the body contract and result.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description compensates only partially with the "fields left out keep their value" merge rule, which is real information not present in the schema. It never enumerates the updatable body fields (name, category, refresh_every, the various webhook/URL fields) or clarifies the profile parameter, so roughly two-thirds of the surface remains uninterpreted.

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 ("Change a third-party plugin") plus the underlying endpoint PATCH /api/my_plugins/{id}, so an agent knows exactly which entity is mutated. It does not differentiate itself from near-name siblings such as trmnl_update_plugin_configuration or trmnl_update_plugin_setting, leaving the plugin-vs-plugin-setting distinction implicit.

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?

"Status cannot change here" is a genuine exclusion and "Fields left out keep their value" hints at partial-update usage, but no alternative tool is named for changing status, and no guidance is given on when to prefer this over trmnl_create_my_plugin or the plugin-configuration tools. Exclusion exists, routing does not.

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