stm32_erase_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While it names the operation, it fails to explicitly warn that this is a destructive, irreversible operation that will erase all data in the target flash. It also does not mention potential side effects like requiring a stable power supply or handling of sector vs. mass erase. This is a significant gap for a high-risk tool.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. It achieves clarity without any wasted words, and the parenthetical clarifies the two operational modes. This is an exemplary concise description.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description. The operation itself is complex (destructive, with two modes), but the description does not explain expected outcomes, error handling, or the relationship with other operations like flashing or resetting. An agent would lack critical context for safe and correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only reiterates the two erase modes already covered by the 'erase_type' enum. Since all parameters are already well-described in the schema, a neutral score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Perform Flash memory erase operation' with specific scope (Full Chip Mass Erase or Sector/Page Erase). It uses a specific verb ('erase') and resource ('Flash memory'), and the two modes effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like stm32_read_memory and stm32_write_memory.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisite steps (e.g., connect, read option bytes), safety precautions, or that erasing is typically required before flashing firmware. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name and sibling set.

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