dbgprobe.erase

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that full chip erase unlocks secured devices, that session-less uses JLinkExe directly, and that session-based avoids USB contention. Could mention that erase is irreversible and time-consuming, but adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action, well-structured with parenthetical caveats. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

Covers main modes and use cases for an 8-parameter tool without output schema. Mentions unlocking secured devices and USB contention. Could mention need for caution or that erase is destructive, but sufficient for agent 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the conditional logic: session_id for session-based, other params for session-less, and start_addr/end_addr relationship. This goes beyond what schema alone provides.

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 it erases target flash, distinguishes between full chip erase and range erase, and explains two modes (session-based and session-less). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like dbgprobe.flash.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use session-based (preferred, no USB contention) vs session-less (for unlocking secured devices before connect). Also explains when to provide address params for range erase vs omit for full chip erase. Lacks explicit mention of when not to use, but context is clear.

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