Upload Sketch

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

While annotations indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention that uploading overwrites the board's firmware, may cause a reset, or that safety checks (like preflight) are bypassed by unsafeSkipPreflight. With destructiveHint already present, the description should add context beyond the annotation.

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 short sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness (e.g., adding a brief note about prerequisites). Still, it earns a 4 for avoiding unnecessary content.

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, nested objects, safety implications), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the tool's role in the workflow (e.g., after compilation), when to use unsafeSkipPreflight, or how safetyContext interacts. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description still lacks essential context 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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. For example, it does not explain that safetyContext is used for preflight checks or that autoInstallCore automates core installation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (upload), the resource (compiled sketch), and the target (connected board/port). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compile_sketch (compilation vs upload) and read_serial_snapshot (different purpose).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. For example, it does not mention that compile_sketch should be run first, or that safety_preflight is recommended.

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