iptime_plan_firmware_upgrade

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it hashes a local file, creates a critical-risk plan, and does not upload. This clarifies what side effects are deferred.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. The key scoping statement, 'No upload occurs yet,' is front-loaded and immediately orients the agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not mention what the created plan returns or how to verify it. It also does not mention whether an existing pending plan is replaced or how the plan should be applied later. Adequate but has clear gaps for a state-creating operation.

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 50%, with router_id already described in the schema. The description helps by calling file_path a 'local firmware file,' but it omits any detail about the hashing format, accepted file types, or how router_id relates to the plan. It partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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 uses specific verbs and objects: 'Hash a local firmware file and create a critical-risk upgrade plan.' It is not a tautology and clearly distinguishes itself from apply/upload operations by adding 'No upload occurs yet.'

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 implies this is a planning-stage tool meant to precede an actual firmware upgrade, and the 'No upload occurs yet' clause hints that iptime_apply_change should be used later. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool.

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