Uninstall a HACS repository

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: it removes installed files, the component stops working until reinstalled, the actual WS command name, and the exact error payload shape including a hint about HACS not being installed. That is genuine behavioral disclosure, not restatement.

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 the one-line purpose, then clearly delimited Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors sections, each earning its place. Slightly verbose in restating the error object twice, but the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the mechanism, the side effects, the usage boundaries and the failure modes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 the single repo_id parameter already carries a description pointing to hacs_list_hacs_repositories. The description reuses 'repo_id' but adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema, so it merits the baseline 3 rather than more.

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+resource ('Uninstall a HACS repository') and goes further by naming the underlying WebSocket command (`hacs/repository/remove`) that actually performs the work, so an agent understands the mechanism. That mechanism detail also cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like hacs_install_hacs_repository or hacs_update_hacs_repository.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' (removing an unneeded HACS-managed component) and 'Not for' (skipping an update while keeping it installed, which is not exposed here). This directly answers when-to-use and when-not-to-use, including pre-empting a likely mistaken call.

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