stm32_set_nickname

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this mutates persistent mappings, that board nicknames survive probe swaps, and that empty nickname deletes the mapping. It omits error behavior (e.g., what happens if both identifiers are supplied) and any permission or auth requirements.

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 core action, then structured into persistence semantics, constraint, args, and return. The physical labeling advice ('colored dots, tape') is mildly tangential but serves as a practical reminder. No wasted repetition of schema types.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values, and the one-line 'Confirmation message' suffices. The input semantics, persistence behavior, and removal path are all covered. Only error/precondition handling (e.g., what happens when both identifiers are passed) is left implicit.

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%, so the description must compensate fully, and it does: nickname is described as a human-readable name with examples, mcu_uid and stlink_sn are each tied to their device class, and the exactly-one constraint plus the empty-string-as-delete semantics add critical meaning not present in the schema's bare string types and empty defaults.

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 both resource types: 'Name a board (by MCU UID) or probe (by ST-Link serial number).' An agent immediately knows what the tool does and which device classes it targets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like stm32_list_probes or stm32_board_info.

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 clear conditions: exactly one of mcu_uid or stlink_sn must be provided, and an empty nickname removes the mapping. It also clarifies board nicknames persist across probe swaps while probe nicknames don't, which helps choose the right identifier. No other tool alternatives are named, but none are directly equivalent.

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