Delete automation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: the call requires HA_ALLOW_WRITE=true and HA_ALLOW_CONFIG_WRITE=true, otherwise it will be refused. It still omits whether deletion is irreversible or what happens if the id is unknown.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the action and its target are front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 single-parameter destructive call with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential enablement prerequisite. It could add irreversibility/error semantics, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%: automation_id and instance_id are both documented in the schema, including instance_id's home-mismatch refusal behavior. The description adds no syntax or format 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 (Delete) and resource (automation) plus the lookup key (unique id), which cleanly separates it from ha_get_automation, ha_set_automation and ha_trigger_automation. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the 5 bar for sibling differentiation.

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?

Implies the use case (remove one automation identified by id) and states the enablement prerequisite, but gives no guidance on when to delete versus alternatives such as disabling via ha_set_automation, and no exclusions. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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