integrations_start_options_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to disclose that starting a flow typically returns a flow_id needed for subsequent submit calls, or that the flow may involve multiple steps. The agent is left unaware of the flow lifecycle.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly expanded to add behavioral context without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of a multi-step options flow and the presence of sibling tools for submit and abort, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return value (likely a flow object) or the need to continue with submit_options_flow_step. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the two parameters ('entry_id' and 'show_advanced_options'). It only mentions 'existing config entry' but does not clarify that 'entry_id' is the ID of that entry. No meaning is added beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states it starts the options flow for an existing config entry, explicitly adding 'edit settings' in parentheses. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'integrations_start_config_flow' which is for new integrations.

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?

The description implies usage for editing existing configuration entries, which differentiates it from starting a new config flow. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'abort_options_flow' or submit steps.

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