start_firmware_upgrade

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value beyond that: it clarifies this is an actual Flash erase/write, that power and connection must be maintained throughout, that results are polled, and that there is no automatic reboot afterward — all operationally important and not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the safety precondition, then behavior, then device scope and operational constraints. The semicolon-heavy packing is dense but each clause carries distinct information; nothing is repeated filler.

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 an output schema covering job_id and a single parameter, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: gating condition, device scope, power/connection requirement, polling, and no-reboot semantics. It is somewhat thin on failure/recovery behavior and on the meaning of plan_id, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

There is one required parameter, plan_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly implies that plan_id refers to a preflight plan ("执行预检计划", "计划中的串口"), giving a weak hint but no statement of where the id comes from or its expected form.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: execute the preflight plan, physically erase/write the main controller Flash, and return a job_id. This clearly separates it from preflight_firmware_upgrade (dry run) and get_firmware_upgrade_status (polling), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It states a hard precondition — run only after the user explicitly requests this burn — which is exactly the gating an agent needs for a destructive operation. It also scopes inputs to a serial port from the plan or a selected TCP device, but it does not name the alternative tools to call first (e.g., preflight) or what to do if preconditions fail.

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