storage_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the protocol (chunked storage_write_request), that it overwrites, and that BLE is slow for large files. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but the key behavioral traits are communicated.

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 relatively concise given the amount of information. It front-loads the purpose and key constraints (BLE, overwrites). The use of emojis and caps adds emphasis but does not detract from readability. Every sentence provides useful information.

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 schema (3 params, 1 required, no enums) and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to use the parameters, and a performance caveat. It does not describe the output, but an output schema exists, so that is acceptable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a write 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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that content is text (UTF-8), local_path is a file on the Mac, and dest is a full Flipper path with a concrete example. It also clarifies the mutually exclusive nature (EITHER content OR local_path), which adds significant value 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 clearly states it writes/uploads a file to the Flipper over BLE. It specifies the two input options (content or local_path), the required dest parameter with an example, and that it overwrites. It distinguishes from sibling tools like storage_read, storage_delete, and others.

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 explains when to use (write/upload) and provides guidance on which parameter to provide (EITHER content OR local_path). It warns about BLE being slow for large files and suggests USB as an alternative, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for USB. Overall, usage context is well covered.

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