Upload Sketch

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say that uploading overwrites the board's firmware, can interrupt a running board, or may invoke preflight checks. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but also no added disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core action and target.

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?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the one-liner plus schema may be enough for straightforward use. Still, the description omits how this relates to upload_and_wait_ready and does not orient the agent around the safety-preflight and auto-install behavior exposed by the parameters.

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 schema documents all seven parameters, including nested safetyContext fields. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 clear action ('Upload') and resource ('a compiled sketch to a connected board/port'), which distinguishes it from compile_sketch and read/list tools. It does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling upload_and_wait_ready, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over upload_and_wait_ready, compile_sketch, or safety_preflight. The phrase 'compiled sketch' and 'connected board/port' imply prerequisites but do not provide explicit usage context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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