flash_firmware

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: overwriting flash, destructive nature, dry_run behavior, timeout capping at 600s. This gives the agent a complete understanding of side effects and execution control.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary and a prominent DESTRUCTIVE warning, followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, destructive behavior, multiple flashing tools) and absence of annotations or output schema details in the description, it fully covers all necessary context. The presence of an output schema elsewhere covers return value information.

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 carries full burden. It adds a bullet list explaining each parameter's meaning, defaults, and allowed formats (e.g., .bin vs .elf), which goes well beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 clearly states 'Flash a firmware image onto the connected board,' using a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools are debug, register, and serial tools, so this tool's unique flashing purpose is well-distinguished.

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 explicitly warns of destructiveness and explains the dry_run safety default. It provides clear context for when to use the tool (flashing firmware) but does not directly compare to siblings; however, siblings are distinct enough that no explicit comparisons are necessary.

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