Remove device from config entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key blast-radius nuance: the device survives under its other config entries (partial destruction), and names the underlying WS contract. It does not discuss permissions or confirmation, so 4 rather than 5.

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 a one-line purpose, then cleanly segmented into Use when / Returns / Limits. Slightly padded by the WS method name line, which largely duplicates the title, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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 two-parameter destructive operation with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, blast radius, and limits. Return-value detail is redundant given the output schema but harmless; nothing an agent needs 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% and both parameters are documented richly in the schema (including how to obtain device_id and that config_entry_id scopes the detachment). The description restates the required-both constraint but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) plus resource (device) plus precise scope (from one of its config entries), and explicitly clarifies it is not a full device deletion. An agent can distinguish this from devices_update_device and integrations_remove_integration without opening any 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?

Contains an explicit 'Use when' clause (detaching a device from one integration without touching its other config entries) and a Limits clause that acts as a when-not (no single call removes across every config entry). This leaves little to inference.

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