Delete Lovelace dashboard

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true/openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot express: two environment gates that must be enabled and the storage-mode-only constraint. It does not say whether deletion is reversible or cascades.

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 sentences, no filler: the action and constraint come first, then the environment prerequisites. Nothing redundant or hedged.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, id source, and required flags. Minor gaps remain around irreversible side effects (e.g., whether views/cards or referencing automations are affected), but nothing needed to call 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including 'not url_path' and the instance_id refusal behavior. The description largely echoes the schema's id wording, so the baseline 3 applies with little added detail.

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 precise verb+resource ('Delete a storage-mode Lovelace dashboard') and even narrows the scope to storage-mode dashboards, which distinguishes it from the YAML-mode path and from sibling deleters like ha_delete_automation or ha_delete_helper. 'by its id' clarifies the keying.

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?

Gives the precondition set (HA_ALLOW_WRITE=true and HA_ALLOW_CONFIG_WRITE=true) and names where the id comes from (ha_list_dashboards or ha_create_dashboard), which routes the agent usefully. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming an alternative deletion path.

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