Reload one config entry

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: the config entry is unloaded and re-set-up, errors surface as `httpx.HTTPStatusError` when the entry doesn't exist or the domain doesn't support reload, and it returns the service-call result. That error behavior is not derivable from the structured fields.

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-loads the core action, then uses labeled lines ('Use when', 'Not for', 'Returns', 'Errors') with zero filler. Every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the service result and documents failure modes. For a single-parameter, non-destructive reload tool this is complete and leaves no ambiguity about scoping or error handling.

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` parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from `system_list_integrations` or `system_get_all_integrations`. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, 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 (reload) and resource (a single integration's config entry), and explicitly distinguishes scope from the sibling `system_reload_all`. It even names the underlying service (`homeassistant.reload_config_entry`), so an agent can tell it apart from the bulk-reload tool immediately.

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?

Contains an explicit 'Use when' clause (pick up new options / recover from a transient setup error) and a 'Not for' clause that names the alternative tool (`system_reload_all`) and the condition that selects it. Nothing 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.