cubemx_plan_ioc_changes

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Do not write a file,' which is a key non-mutating behavior that an agent must know. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as whether an existing .ioc file is required or the nature of the plan output, so it is not fully transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource scope, followed by the crucial safety note. Every word contributes meaning, with no superfluous content.

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 description covers the core purpose and non-writing behavior, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling cubemx_plan_regeneration tool or mention prerequisites like an existing .ioc file, leaving gaps for a tool with such a rich request schema.

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 description lists the categories of changes ('pin, peripheral, parameter, and project changes'), which map meaningfully to the request fields (pin_assignments, parameter_updates, enabled_peripherals, project_name/toolchain). This adds value beyond the schema, which lacks descriptions for the top-level request property. However, it does not detail individual parameters, and the schema's nested descriptions are sparse.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plan') and names the resources ('pin, peripheral, parameter, and project changes'). The explicit note 'Do not write a file' distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, apply, or generate, making the purpose clear.

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 phrase 'Do not write a file' implies usage for planning before applying changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cubemx_apply_ioc_changes or cubemx_plan_regeneration. There is no direct mention of alternatives, making the guidance only implied.

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