Clean ESPHome build files

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it names what gets destroyed (cached build files), states the transport ('runs over the VomeHome relay — no ports to open'), and prescribes recovery routing for an unreachable error.

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 layered with trigger, transport, and troubleshooting in a logical order. Each sentence carries information, though four sentences is slightly more than the minimum needed for a delete operation.

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 destructive 3-param tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, transport, follow-up, and error handling. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though return/confirmation behavior is left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents configuration, instance_id, and timeout_seconds. The description reinforces that a configuration is required but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Delete the cached build files for a configuration.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like esphome_compile and esphome_validate, which is exactly the differentiation an agent needs.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a compile fails for reasons the YAML does not explain'), a root cause (stale build directory after an ESPHome version change), and the follow-up action ('Then compile again'). It also routes the agent to esphome_dashboard_info for the unreachable case instead of mislabeling it unsupported.

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