erase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the effect of memory='all' (chip erase), the AVR-specific EESAVE fuse behavior, and lists other memory values. It also states the return value ('OK'). However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions required, or potential side effects like irreversible data loss.

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 concise with 5 sentences, each adding distinct information: basic function, default behavior, AVR detail, valid values, return value, and usage hint. No redundant or irrelevant 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 has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits explanations for 5 parameters and does not describe the output schema (though context indicates one exists). The usage hint is helpful but does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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?

Of the 6 parameters, only 'memory' is described in detail (values: all, flash, eeprom, user_row). The other 5 parameters (device, tool, serialnumber, serialport, baudrate) are not explained, despite having 0% schema description coverage. The description adds partial value but fails to clarify the full parameter set.

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 tool erases target device memory and specifies default behavior (chip erase) along with valid memory values. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like write_hex or flash, but the verb 'erase' and context make the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes a specific usage recommendation: 'Use erase before write_hex when the target is not blank.' However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives like write_memory or flash.

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