Disable a config entry

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

Annotations already cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds non-obvious behavior on top: entries/devices/entities stay registered but stop loading, the underlying WebSocket command and disabled_by='user' flag, and error behavior (RuntimeError when entry_id is unknown). This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 sectioned into behavior, 'Use when', 'Not for', Returns and Errors. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary (the Returns line is redundant with the output schema), but every other sentence earns its place.

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 one-param, non-destructive mutation with an output schema, the agent has everything it needs: effect on state, reversibility, alternatives, and failure mode. No meaningful gap remains.

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 entry_id param is documented in the schema itself (including where to obtain it). The description adds no parameter-level information, so the 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 (disable) plus resource (an integration's config entry) and the crucial scope detail 'without removing it'. It also names the two siblings it must not be confused with (remove_integration, enable_integration), so an agent can distinguish 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?

Explicit 'Use when' (pause temporarily, keep config/registry intact) and 'Not for' (permanent deletion -> remove_integration; reversal -> enable_integration). Both the positive condition and the alternatives are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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