flash_firmware

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotence; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: default post-flash reset-and-run, the option to leave the target halted, and a named refusal mode (elf_layout_unsupported) with the workaround. It stops short of describing timing, session state effects, or how a failure leaves the target.

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 and each subsequent sentence carries new information (formats, default run, opt-out, refusal workaround). Slightly dense and dependent on parenthetical device-tool jargon, but no wasted sentences.

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, non-idempotent single-parameter-ish operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the default side effect, the opt-out, and one notable failure mode with an alternative. Adequate without over-explaining return values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: why reset_run=false matters (breakpoint setup), what the omitted session defaults to, and which formats file_path accepts. Useful context without re-documenting syntax.

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 (Flashes) and resource (compiled firmware binary) plus supported input formats (.elf/.axf). An agent can immediately tell this is the flash-and-execute path rather than the sibling flash_erase or verify_flash tools.

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 for the reset_run=false variant ('to set breakpoints before the firmware starts') and for using a fromelf BIN instead of an AXF. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling flash_and_run, so routing between those two is left to inference.

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