board-attach

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description doesn't need to restate mutability. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the write target (sketch.yaml) and the read-mode fallback when sketchPath is omitted. It doesn't detail error handling or overwrite behavior, but the key behavioral trait (dual read/write mode) is disclosed.

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?

Two compact sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the secondary read-mode is appended without superfluous words. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, why, and the two modes. The lack of output schema means a hint about what 'shows current defaults' returns would help, but the core is complete for correct invocation.

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 already documents each parameter with examples. The description adds meaning by explaining the consequence of each: fqbn/port/programmer become saved defaults, and omitting sketchPath switches to a display mode. That is value beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 (save) and resource (default port + FQBN + optional programmer into a sketch's profile), and explicitly ties it to the downstream effect (later compile/upload calls can omit them). It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like board-list or board-details, which are read-only board queries.

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 clarifies the two modes: with sketchPath it saves defaults, and 'With no sketchPath, shows current defaults.' This gives clear usage context. It doesn't name an explicit alternative tool for viewing defaults, but the mode distinction is sufficient for correct invocation.

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