Abort a config flow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description explains WHY: nothing was persisted, only in-progress state is discarded. It also documents the underlying endpoint and the specific error raised (httpx.HTTPStatusError on unknown/already-finished flow_id), which is behavior not covered by any structured field.

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 core action, then cleanly segmented into Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors. Every line carries distinct information with no filler.

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-param mutation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, routing, side-effect scope, and error modes. Nothing needed 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 flow_id parameter is already documented with its provenance (start_config_flow or list_flows_in_progress). The description adds no format, syntax, or semantics beyond the schema, so 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 (abort) and resource (config flow) with the scope qualifier 'that has not been finished yet', and explicitly distinguishes itself from integrations_remove_integration. An agent can select it without opening the 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?

Provides an explicit 'Use when' (cancelling a setup started by mistake) and a 'Not for' that names the correct sibling alternative (integrations_remove_integration). Routing is unambiguous.

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