Start or continue a config flow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the write profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by naming the required authorization ('ha:config (brokered) or HA_ALLOW_CONFIG_WRITE'). It stops short of explaining the consequence of the destructive hint (e.g., that a completed flow creates a persistent config entry) or what happens to an abandoned flow.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose plus the start/continue split are front-loaded before the authorization note. Every clause carries 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?

For a 5-parameter, 0-required, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the two invocation modes and the auth requirement well. The gap is the flow lifecycle: it doesn't say what a completed flow yields (e.g., a new config entry) or that multi-step flows must be driven iteratively, which an agent needs to know for a config-flow API.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: handler selects 'start' mode while flow_id + user_input select 'continue' mode, and user_input doubles as defaults on start. That mode-dependency is real added meaning beyond the per-field schema descriptions.

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+resource ('Add or configure an integration via Home Assistant's config flow API') and immediately splits the operation into its two distinct modes (start vs. continue), which distinguishes it from siblings like ha_integration_setup_vome, ha_list_discovery_flows, and ha_config_entry_options.

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?

It gives clear conditional context for the two modes ('Start: pass handler... Continue: pass flow_id + user_input'), which tells the agent how to invoke it, but it names no alternatives or exclusions — it never says when to prefer ha_integration_setup_vome or ha_config_entry_options, nor what happens if a flow is already partially complete.

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