flash_firmware

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

With no annotations, this description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals progress reporting at least every 5%, cancellation support, and the erase flow requiring confirm_erase=True. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover all potential side effects or prerequisites.

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 description is two sentences, with the primary action in the first and additional behavioral details in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the safety confirmation, and progress/cancellation behavior. It doesn't mention prerequisites like bootloader mode or return values, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies that firmware_path is written to port, and it explains the dependency between erase and confirm_erase. This compensates well for the bare schema, though it doesn't detail every parameter independently.

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 description begins with 'Write `firmware_path` to `port`', a specific verb and resource combination that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_ports, board_info, and fs_* operations by focusing on firmware flashing.

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 context of writing firmware to a port is clear, and the sibling list shows alternatives, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus others or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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