Configure an interrupt's priority, subpriority, and enabled state in a standalone STM32CubeMX project and persist it in the NVIC line for the specified IRQ.
Configure an interrupt in the standalone project (priority, subpriority, enabled state) and persist it in the NVIC. line.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| irq | Yes | IRQ name | |
| enabled | No | Enable the interrupt | |
| priority | No | Preemption priority | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id | |
| subpriority | No | Subpriority |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It discloses that configuration is persisted in the NVIC.<IRQ> line, but it does not say whether that line is created or overwritten, whether validation occurs, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the configurable fields, and the persistence target. There is no redundant or wasted wording.
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?
The schema fully documents all five parameters, and the description covers the core action and persistence target. However, with no annotations and no output schema, important behavioral details about mutation side effects and failure modes remain unaddressed, leaving it adequate but not complete.
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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only grouping context by naming priority, subpriority, and enabled state, and maps irq to the NVIC.<IRQ> line, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema.
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 and resource: configure an interrupt in the standalone project. It also names the configurable fields and the persistence target, NVIC.<IRQ>, so the agent can understand the operation without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as nvic_write or nvic_read.
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 phrase 'in the standalone project' gives some context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus nvic_write, nvic_read, or other standalone_* tools. It also does not mention prerequisites such as the project needing to exist or the IRQ needing to be known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.