stm32_ble_stack_install

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it shells out to STM32_Programmer_CLI, passes firstinstall=1, and surfaces a named error condition with a recovery path. It stops short of stating destructive effects (whether flash/option bytes are erased) or whether a power cycle/reset is required after the co-processor stack is loaded, which are real gaps for a firmware-writing operation.

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 purpose and ordering, then structured Args/Returns sections tied to the actual parameters; nothing is bloated. The 'Uses firstinstall=1' detail is implementation trivia that contributes little for an agent.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes the response shape, and it covers prerequisites, failure diagnosis, and sibling routing. Given no annotations at all, it should additionally say what the install overwrites and whether a board reset/power cycle follows.

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% (bare strings only), and the description compensates for all three parameters: probe accepts three identifier forms (board nickname, probe nickname, ST-Link SN), variant is constrained ('only full is currently wired', others live at different addresses), and wireless_dir is optional with a named binary directory. This is information an agent could not get from 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 ('Install BLE stack on an STM32WB board') plus a scoping prerequisite, and positions itself as 'Step 2 of first-time bringup', which distinguishes it from the FUS tools in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation and its place in the workflow without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('requires FUS already upgraded'), an ordering rule ('Step 2 of first-time bringup'), and a concrete fallback: on FUS_STATE_IMG_NOT_FOUND, run stm32_fus_upgrade first. This names the sibling tool and the condition that routes to it.

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