stm32_fus_upgrade

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the concrete invocation behavior (mode=UR, firstinstall=0, honoring FUS_INSTALL.md) and the binary-directory fallback chain, but says nothing about the risk profile of a firmware write: whether it is irreversible, how long it takes, whether a failure can brick the FUS, or what permissions/tooling (STM32_Programmer_CLI) must be present.

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, then prerequisites, then Args/Returns — an agent can stop reading after sentence two and still be correct. The Returns block is largely redundant given an output schema exists, which costs a little tightness but not much.

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 two-parameter firmware operation this covers purpose, ordering in the bringup sequence, argument resolution, and sourcing of the binaries — enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is the operational risk/failure behavior, which matters most here and is absent.

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 0% and the schema only carries bare titles, so the description must compensate and does: `probe` is defined as board nickname, probe nickname, or ST-Link SN, and `wireless_dir` is marked optional with its full fallback resolution ($STM32_WIRELESS_BINARIES then ~/stm32cube-wb/...). That is more meaning than the schema provides for both parameters.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Upgrade FUS on an STM32WB board") and the description adds scope (step 1 of bringup, only for boards with an older FUS). It implicitly separates itself from stm32_ble_stack_install by ordering, but never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling stm32_fus_bootstrap.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ("Step 1 of first-time STM32WB bringup. Must run before installing a modern BLE stack on a board shipped with an older FUS"), which is a real precondition an agent can check. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer stm32_fus_bootstrap or what to do if the FUS is already current.

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