Renames an IP instance in an STM32CubeMX project and updates the MX_/HAL_ symbol prefix in generated code, keeping code identifiers aligned with the new instance name.
Rename an IP instance (set username <ip> <name>), which changes the MX_/HAL_ symbol prefix in generated code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IP instance | |
| name | Yes | New instance name | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real side effect — the MX_/HAL_ symbol prefix in generated code changes — but omits whether code must be regenerated, whether the rename is reversible, collision handling, or permission/state requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the consequence trailing. No filler, and the parenthetical CLI mapping earns its place by anchoring the operation.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and one important effect, but leaves out preconditions, failure modes, and what happens to previously generated symbol references.
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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, constraint, or validation detail (e.g. allowed identifier characters, uniqueness) beyond what the schema already states for ip, name and project_id.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('Rename an IP instance') and even gives the underlying command (`set username <ip> <name>`). That clearly distinguishes it from parameter-editing siblings like ip_param_set or ip_params_set, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for changing an instance name, but the description never says when to use this versus ip_param_set or other mutation tools, nor any preconditions such as the project needing to be open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.