Flash firmware (standalone)

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

Adds meaningful behavioral context: open failure mode ('FAILED with DEVICE_BUSY'), holds exclusive USB access, and notes if the same probe is being used by another session. However, it also has no annotations and does not disclose success side effects or the outcome when there are no failures, since there is no output schema.

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?

Description is a succinct single block with semicolons that combine workflow necessary, failure details and alternative; no filler. It doesn't explode into an endless list and first sentences are enough to convey action and purpose.

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 tool with a direct hardware interface and no output schema, description mentions expected failure conditions (must disconnect/debugger), alternative path, and prerequisite. It never specifies the underlying programming sequence or target device in a separate section, but it avoids requiring output definitions.

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?

Input schema covers 5/7 parameters: file, run, reset, boot address and verify. It adds default values and a COM semantics meaning but leaves 'serial' and 'frequencyKhz' undocumented despite their presence in the schema. Minimal additional meaning added to the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific goal ('one-shot flash'), names a specific interface (STM32_Programmer_CLI), and distinguishes itself from a sibling (flash_load_in_session) and a sibling with the alternative name that also references a specific failure mode/busy device state.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('no debug session required'), when not to use ('if a debug session is already open on the same probe'), and names an explicit alternative ('disconnect it first, or use flash_load_in_session instead').

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