hacs_install_hacs_repository

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'install' (implying mutation) but omits details like required permissions, idempotency, side effects on existing installations, or error conditions. This is insufficient.

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 front-loads the verb ('Install') and resource ('HACS repository'). Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having only two parameters, the description lacks crucial context: what qualifies as a HACS repository, how to obtain repo_id, success/failure indicators, and any caveats. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for missing operational context.

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 for 'version' (optional pinning) but does not explain 'repo_id' beyond its name or format. The description partially helps but leaves ambiguity for a key required parameter.

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 action ('Install a HACS repository') and mentions optional version pinning. It is specific about the resource but does not distinguish from the sibling 'hacs_add_custom_repository', which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hacs_add_custom_repository), nor are prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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