hacs_add_custom_repository

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'Add' implying mutation, but it does not specify required permissions, side effects (e.g., does it install immediately?), or what the output schema returns. The behavior beyond adding is unclear.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's action and key parameters. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Add' and resource 'custom HACS repository'. No redundant 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 tool modifies HACS configuration and has an output schema (undocumented), the description lacks details on post-add behavior, error conditions (e.g., duplicate URL), and permission requirements. It is not fully self-contained for an agent to use confidently.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by listing category values (integration, plugin, etc.), but does not clarify the URL format or validation constraints. The description partially clarifies param usage but leaves gaps.

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 the tool's function: adding a custom HACS repository by URL and category. It lists the allowed categories (integration, plugin, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hacs_install_hacs_repository or hacs_list_hacs_repositories.

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 implicitly conveys when to use (adding a custom repository), but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like hacs_install_hacs_repository for default repositories. No exclusion criteria or context for appropriate use is provided.

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