Create Lovelace dashboard

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real context beyond that: the required environment toggles HA_ALLOW_WRITE and HA_ALLOW_CONFIG_WRITE, and the fact that views/cards are not set at creation and must be added via a separate call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the follow-up step, then the prerequisites. Nothing extraneous; each sentence carries distinct 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 write tool with thin annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and the post-creation workflow, which is what an agent needs. It omits failure behavior (e.g., duplicate url_path, invalid slug) and whether a value is returned, though the no-output-schema case lowers that burden.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema with examples (mdi icon, url_path slug). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 ('Register a new storage-mode Lovelace dashboard'), including the storage-mode qualifier that separates it from YAML-mode dashboards. It also names the sibling ha_save_dashboard and clarifies the division of labor, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the follow-up step ('call ha_save_dashboard to set its views/cards'), which routes the agent correctly between creation and configuration. It gives no explicit when-not or alternative-for-creation guidance, but the sequencing context is clear.

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