trmnl_write_markup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the remote-state warning, but it never says whether writing markup for a size overwrites existing markup for that size or how it interacts with an existing transform/theme setup.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the endpoint line is genuinely useful for an agent mapping to the API. The trailing "Changes remote state or starts work" sentence is slightly boilerplate but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 tool with a nested body object, no output schema, and a content payload whose format is unspecified, the description should say what content is expected and what happens on success. It leaves the agent guessing about the payload contract, which is the main risk for this tool.

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%: size and plugin_setting_id have terse descriptions, while the critical nested body.content field and the profile override are undocumented in the schema. The description does nothing to compensate — it never states what markup language the content string must contain (Liquid? HTML?) or what the size options mean.

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 ("Write markup for a size") and names the concrete endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what is being mutated. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like trmnl_read_markup, trmnl_render_markup, or trmnl_markup_validate, leaving that routing to inference.

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 generic safety boilerplate ("Run only within the user-authorized scope"), which applies to any mutating tool and does not tell the agent when to choose this over trmnl_read_markup, trmnl_render_markup, or the project-based workflow. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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