Abort an options flow

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds value beyond them: it explains why nothing is destroyed (the entry's existing options are untouched since the unfinished flow applied nothing), and documents error behavior (`httpx.HTTPStatusError` if `flow_id` is unknown or already finished). It could still mention permission/auth requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Deliberately structured with front-loaded purpose, endpoint, then labeled 'Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors' lines. Every line carries distinct information; nothing is repetitive or padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief 'Returns: HA's abort response' is sufficient without enumerating fields. Side effects, error conditions, endpoint, and sibling disambiguation are all covered for a one-parameter flow-termination tool.

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 `flow_id` and its provenance. The description adds no format or naming detail beyond the schema, which fits the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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 ('Abort an options flow') plus the constraint that it must not yet be finished, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling `integrations_abort_config_flow` for new-integration setups. An agent can distinguish this from every other flow-related tool without reading a 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?

Uses explicit 'Use when' (cancelling a mistaken/unwanted options edit) and 'Not for' (cancelling a new-integration setup flow — use the config-flow sibling instead) phrasing, naming the alternative tool directly. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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