erase_flash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it warns the operation is dangerous and irreversible, clarifies it erases the entire flash, and reveals that execution is deferred until the server asks the user for a confirmation word. This goes beyond a basic 'erase flash' statement.

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 compact and front-loaded with the critical warning and usage condition before the behavior detail. Every sentence adds value: danger, when to use, and the confirmation-step behavior.

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 destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential safety context, usage trigger, and post-call confirmation requirement. It lacks only minor details such as potential side effects beyond data loss or expected output, but nothing critical 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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, though the schema's port note about auto-detection after flashing provides useful context. 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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: '擦除整块 flash' (erase entire flash) and explicitly notes it is unrecoverable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as flash, which writes firmware, and read_serial, which reads output.

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 states explicit conditions for use: '只在怀疑 flash 内容损坏或要彻底重置时用' (only when suspecting corruption or wanting a full reset). It does not name an alternative tool or provide a when-not-to-use, but the conditions are specific enough to guide selection.

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