Remove Lovelace resource

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the confirm gate (no change unless confirm=True), the blast radius (drops the resource from every dashboard page that loaded it), and the downstream effect (custom card/theme stops rendering until re-added). Annotations only give the generic destructiveHint=true; the description supplies the concrete consequences.

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 purpose and the mandatory confirm requirement, then structured into Use when / Returns / Errors blocks that are easy to scan. Slightly long, with the confirm behavior repeated across the prose and schema, but no filler sentences.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to use it, the confirm prerequisite, the destructive consequence, and error shape. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters, including the confirm semantics and the source of resource_id. The description largely restates this, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Remove), a specific resource type (registered Lovelace resource), and the identifier basis (numeric id). This clearly separates it from dashboards_add_dashboard_resource and dashboards_update_dashboard_resource without needing to open either schema.

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?

"Use when: removing a resource that is no longer needed (e.g. after uninstalling a HACS frontend card)" gives a concrete trigger scenario. It does not, however, name the alternative tools (update vs. remove) or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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