live_memory_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the write path (session's OpenOCD connection), that the session continues and subsequent polls reflect the new value, that floats require a 32-bit symbol, and that width auto-detects from symbol size. It omits risk notes about writing arbitrary addresses and any permission/state preconditions.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and key behavioral fact (session keeps running), then structured Args/Returns blocks. Every line adds information; nothing is redundant.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism, parameter formats, exclusivity constraints, and a brief return note (an output schema also exists). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully, and it does: session_id provenance, accepted value formats ("0xFF", "255", "0.85"), symbol as variable name or C dotted path with auto-detected width, address as hex, width meaning 8/16/32 bits and restricted to address form. Every one of the 5 parameters gains meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Edit a variable through a RUNNING live memory session (live expression edit)'. The emphasis on running session and OpenOCD write path implicitly distinguishes it from stm32_write_memory, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Clear context for use: it writes through the live session so 'the monitoring session keeps running' and there is 'no need to stop and restart'. Mutual exclusivity of symbol vs address is stated. However, it gives no explicit exclusions (e.g. when to use stm32_write_memory or live_memory_read instead).

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