Install the Vome add-on

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: environment requirement (HAOS/Supervised), the authorization model (ha:config scope is authoritative, no HA_ALLOW_WRITE flag needed), and the required follow-up restart and integration step. The 'if missing' wording implies repo-add idempotency. It does not explain the destructiveHint (what a failed or repeated install may affect), so it falls short of 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by prerequisites and post-steps. Every sentence carries information; minor length is justified by the multi-step workflow, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 multi-step installation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action chain, prerequisites, auth-mode nuance, and required follow-up steps. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit failure/rollback behavior given the destructiveHint.

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 skip_start, instance_id, and repository_url fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource chain: adds the VomeSync GitHub add-on repository (if missing), installs the Vome add-on, and starts it. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like ha_hacs_add_repository because it is scoped to the Vome add-on, and it sequences itself against ha_integration_setup_vome by noting the integration step comes afterward.

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?

Provides clear context for use: 'Developer helper', requires HAOS/Supervised, and notes the brokered-mode scope behavior. It also lays out the post-install flow (restart HA, then add the integration). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it versus the generic HACS repository tools.

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