start_firmware_validation

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the exact execution model: preflight then flash exactly once, wait for a manual restart, then verify device/firmware identity before auto-capturing and generating a report. Critically it states that closing the MCP session does NOT terminate the task and that failures are not auto-retried, which the agent cannot infer from any structured field. This is precisely the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and the execution sequence, and every clause carries behavioral weight — the semicolon-separated caveats on session survival, no auto-retry and no motor control are all decision-relevant. The first sentence is dense and run-on with several comma-chained steps, which slightly hurts scannability but not correctness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining agent-critical concerns for a long-running destructive background task: lifecycle after session close, retry policy, human-in-the-loop restart, and scope boundaries. Combined with annotations that already flag destructiveness and non-idempotency, little is left ambiguous about what invoking this will do.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions plan_id, so the single required parameter is undocumented in both places. '本轮预览' hints indirectly that the id refers to a prepared preview plan, but the agent is given no statement of where that id comes from or what it must reference. With one undocumented required parameter, this is a real gap rather than a baseline case.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('start an independent background task' that performs preflight, a single flash, manual-restart wait, verification, capture and report), which is clearly a firmware validation workflow distinct from start_firmware_upgrade. It also distinguishes itself from motion-related siblings with '不控制电机'. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it supersedes, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opening clause '用户授权本轮预览后' establishes a clear prerequisite: the preview must exist and the user must authorize this round before the task may start. The negative constraints ('失败不会自动重刷', no motor control) further constrain when this is appropriate. It never names cancel_firmware_validation or get_firmware_validation_status as the follow-up paths, so the alternatives routing is implicit rather than explicit.

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