Remove a HACS repository

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it specifies that files are deleted and tracking stops, that the call is idempotent/safe on never-installed repos, and that ha:config is required.

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, each earning its place: what happens, the accepted input, the idempotency guarantee, and the permission requirement. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, the tracking side effect, the idempotent behavior, and the auth prerequisite. Combined with annotations and fully described parameters, 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%, and the description's note that the repository accepts an id or 'owner/repo' name merely restates the schema's own description. No additional syntax, format, or constraint detail is added, so the baseline of 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 ('Uninstall a HACS-managed repository's files and stop HACS tracking it as custom'), which cleanly separates it from the add/download/list HACS siblings. An agent can identify the removal operation without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for when it is appropriate, including the notable case of calling it on a repository that was never installed, and states the required permission (ha:config). It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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