trmnl_upload_plugin_setting_archive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Changes remote state or starts work', consistent with those annotations, but fails to say what happens to a pre-existing archive (overwrite? merge?), size limits, or auth requirements — gaps that matter for a non-idempotent upload.

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?

Two sentences with the operation front-loaded, so the core is easy to find. The second and third sentences are boilerplate scope language that adds little beyond what annotations already imply.

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 mutation tool with a nested three-field body, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly — nothing on archive format, overwrite behavior, or what the response confirms.

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 supplies no parameter meaning at all. The nested body fields base64, filename, and contentType have no explanation anywhere, and nothing indicates whether the archive payload replaces or supplements existing setting files.

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 ('Upload a plugin setting archive') and anchors it to the concrete endpoint POST /api/plugin_settings/{id}/archive. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling trmnl_download_plugin_setting_archive, though it does not distinguish itself from trmnl_import_plugin_setting_files.

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 guidance is the generic guard 'Run only within the user-authorized scope', which says nothing about when to choose this over trmnl_import_plugin_setting_files or other archive/files siblings. No prerequisites, no when-not conditions, no alternatives are named.

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