Update a HACS repository

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

Annotations already flag destructive/not-idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds substantially beyond them: the three underlying WebSocket calls, that refresh returns no version info, that the new release is downloaded over the network, that the previous version is only recoverable from a prior backup, that there is no automatic rollback, and the exact error shapes and when the download step is skipped.

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 action, then structured with labeled Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors / Limits sections. Every section carries real information, though it is on the verbose end for a one-parameter tool.

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, multi-step, non-idempotent tool, the description covers prerequisites, alternatives, failure modes, side effects, and recovery constraints. Despite having both an output schema and annotations, it adds error-shape detail those structured fields do not carry.

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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents repo_id fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or source guidance beyond what the schema's description ('e.g. from hacs_list_hacs_repositories') already provides. Baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Update an installed HACS repository to its latest available version') and immediately distinguishes itself from hacs_install_hacs_repository for version pinning. The agent knows exactly what this does without reading anything else.

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: `pending_upgrade` is set ... (see hacs_list_hacs_critical_updates)' and 'Not for: pinning a specific version instead of the latest — use hacs_install_hacs_repository with `version` set.' Both the trigger condition and the alternative tool with its selecting argument are named.

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