burn-bootloader

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-redundant context: it requires physical hardware and warns to double-check fqbn + programmer, which is exactly the failure mode for this irreversible operation. It omits what actually happens to the existing bootloader/flash contents.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, then the hardware caveat, then the verification warning. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, but the tool's contract is simple and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description's coverage of prerequisite hardware and pre-flight verification is largely sufficient. It could note the consequences of a mismatched fqbn/programmer to be fully complete for an irreversible operation.

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%, with each of fqbn, port, and programmer documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes 'fqbn + programmer' as things to verify and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (burn) and resource (bootloader) plus the required mechanism (external programmer), which cleanly separates it from the sibling `upload` tool. The examples (USBasp, atmel_ice) pin down the resource unambiguously.

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?

Clearly signals when this applies: only with extra programming hardware, explicitly 'not a normal upload', which implicitly routes agents to `upload` otherwise. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating prerequisites like the board being disconnected from the normal port.

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