Cleans build artifacts from an STM32 project directory. Requires explicit confirmation to delete files.
Clean build artifacts. Flashing hardware and deleting files require an explicit confirm: true argument. Default is refuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must pass true to confirm deletion of build folders | |
| projectPath | Yes | Path to STM32 project directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that deleting files requires confirm:true and that the default is refusal, which is essential for a destructive operation. The mention of 'flashing hardware' is slightly out of scope for a clean tool, but the core deletion behavior is transparent.
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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence is slightly muddied by referencing 'flashing hardware' in a clean tool, but overall it is compact and readable with no significant redundancy.
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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It does not describe output or side effects beyond deletion, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical. The main missing piece is explicit usage context, which is already scored separately.
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 projectPath and confirm are already documented. The description adds that the default is 'refuse,' which merely mirrors the schema's default:false. It does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding 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 the action and target clearly: 'Clean build artifacts.' It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like stm32_build and stm32_flash, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It stops short of a 5 because the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 implied: this tool is for removing build artifacts, and the confirm warning signals that deletion requires explicit consent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.