Delete a config entry (integration)

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

Annotations flag the write/destructive profile, but the description adds genuinely new context: the deletion is permanent, it requires the ha:config scope, it was previously impossible outside the UI, and the response's require_restart signals whether a restart is needed. These go meaningfully beyond destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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 in the first sentence, followed by the motivating scenario, the prerequisite lookup, and the auth/return notes. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler.

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 tool with full annotations and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description covers target acquisition, auth requirements, irreversibility, and the one response field of interest (require_restart). Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by telling the agent where entry_id comes from and how to identify the correct stale entry (match on name/domain/state). The instance_id guard semantics are left to the schema, but the entry_id guidance is a useful addition.

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 ('Permanently delete one config entry (integration instance) by id') and distinguishes itself from siblings like ha_remove_entity and ha_delete_automation. The orphaned/duplicate-entry scenario sharpens exactly what is being deleted.

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?

Explains clearly when to use it (orphaned or duplicate entries causing a '_2' entity_id suffix) and routes the agent to ha_list_config_entries with matching criteria (name/domain/state). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative for the entity-vs-config-entry distinction, so it falls just short of the top tier.

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