erase_flash

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the operation erases chip flash and requires confirmation, which is valuable. It stops short of mentioning irreversibility, impact on existing firmware, or what happens if confirm is false.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core operation first and the critical confirmation requirement second. There is no wasted text.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is thin. It explains what the tool does but does not cover parameter semantics, operational prerequisites like an active probe connection, or expected outcomes/errors.

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 for parameter meaning. It only adds meaning for confirm by stating it must be true; chip, probe_id, and timeout_seconds are left entirely to the schema's defaults and names.

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 states a specific verb ('Erase'), a clear resource ('target chip flash'), and an exact command equivalence ('pyocd erase -c'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like flash_firmware and verify_flash.

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 description gives an important precondition ('Requires confirm=True') and implies this is the erase step in a flashing workflow. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus flash_firmware, verify_flash, or other sibling operations.

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