connect

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent behavior, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the side effect of closing the previous connection, the validation gate (MSP/BTFL/API>=1.40), and the failure semantics (port is closed on rejection). It does not discuss in-flight operations affected by the forced close, but the behavioral picture is strong.

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 dense sentences: action first, then validation/failure behavior, then return values. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant fact (closing the prior connection) is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return contract (api_version, fc_variant, fc_version), and combined with annotations it covers safety profile, side effects, failure mode, and prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both port (default, BETAFLIGHT_PORT env var, auto-detection) and baudrate are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Connecte le serveur au FC via port série") plus the key behavioral qualifier that it closes the previous connection, which cleanly separates it from siblings like disconnect and list_serial_ports. An agent immediately knows this is the session-establishing call.

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?

Usage is implied (this is the entry point before any get_*/set_* call) and the preconditions for success are stated (MSP response, BTFL firmware, API >= 1.40), but it never routes the agent to alternatives such as list_serial_ports for discovery or disconnect for teardown. Adequate context, no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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