trmnl_verify_custom_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the validation rule (each entry needs keyname, field_type and name) and the underlying endpoint, which tells the agent what constitutes a failure. It still doesn't describe the shape of the validation result.

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?

Three short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'TRMNL POST /api/plugin_settings/custom_fields/verifications' line is implementation detail that earns marginal space.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what a validation call returns (pass/fail shape, per-field errors) so the agent knows how to interpret the result. It covers purpose and input rules but leaves the outcome unspecified.

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 50% and the description only reinforces that custom_fields is a YAML list of entries with keyname/field_type/name. The 'profile' parameter is not mentioned in the description at all, though the schema does describe it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: validates a recipe's custom_fields YAML without saving. Clear what it does and that it is a dry-run check. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like trmnl_update_plugin_setting_fields or trmnl_project_validate, so differentiation is left 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?

The phrase 'without saving it' implies this is the pre-flight alternative to actually writing custom fields, which is useful implied guidance. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is given.

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