trmnl_update_plugin_setting

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent but non-destructive mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the PATCH endpoint and the server-side clamping rule that a too-fast refresh_interval is raised to the nearest allowed value. It does not describe the response payload or required permissions.

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 actionable content is front-loaded and the sibling routing is compact, but the trailing boilerplate ('Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope.') is generic filler 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?

There is no output schema, the input has a nested body with four fields at low schema coverage, and the description only addresses one field plus the target resource. Return shape, permission requirements, and the other updatable attributes are left unaddressed, so it is adequate but incomplete for a nested-body mutation.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining refresh_interval behavior and noting that fields belong to a different tool. However, it never mentions the 'description' or 'health_notification_enabled' body fields, nor the 'profile' parameter, leaving several params undocumented in both places.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Rename a plugin setting or change how it refreshes') and the follow-up clarifies it patches attributes of the setting instance rather than its fields or markup. It explicitly disambiguates from siblings by naming trmnl_update_plugin_setting_fields and trmnl_write_markup. Slightly narrow vs. the body which also allows description and health_notification_enabled updates.

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?

Routing guidance is explicit: form fields belong to updatePluginSettingFields, markup to writeMarkup, so an agent knows when to pick this tool instead. It lacks any when-not / prerequisite guidance beyond the generic 'Run only within the user-authorized scope' line.

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