Re-interview a Matter device

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the required permission (HA_ALLOW_CONFIG_WRITE / ha:config) and the physical wake-up prerequisite. It explains why the call is needed (HA only learns changed endpoints when it asks), but says nothing about side effects like entity re-registration or reload effects.

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 action and its UI analogue, then conditions, then prerequisite, then auth requirement — four short clauses with no filler. Every sentence carries an operational fact.

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 non-destructive but config-writing device operation with no output schema, the description supplies the triggers, the permission gate, the wake-up caveat, and the device-id provenance. Nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including instance_id's refuse-if-different-home semantics. The description only restates the device_id source (from ha_list_devices), matching the schema's own 'not the Matter node id' note, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data. 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 concrete verb and resource (ask a Matter device to describe itself) and anchors it to a familiar UI affordance, 'the device page's Re-interview button'. No sibling tool does re-interviewing, so an agent can disambiguate it instantly from ha_list_devices, ha_get_config, or the esphome tools.

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 explicit trigger conditions — after a firmware update, or when a button/endpoint/feature stopped appearing — plus the prerequisite that a battery device may need a button press to wake. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative route for related problems, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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