Remove an entity from the registry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds behavior annotations cannot express: the prerequisite HA_ALLOW_CONFIG_WRITE (ha:config) scope, and the non-obvious side effect that removal is futile for entities the integration still provides because they 'come straight back.' This is exactly the kind of beyond-annotations context that prevents a bad call.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the conditional guidance and the permission note. The parenthetical qualifies the orphan condition rather than padding.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers action, eligibility conditions, the safer alternative, and the required auth scope. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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%, so both entity_id and the optional instance_id are already documented in the schema, including the cross-home refusal semantics. The description adds no further parameter detail, 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+resource ('Remove an entity's registry entry') and immediately scopes it to orphan cleanup, which separates it from ha_update_entity and the various ha_delete_* siblings. An agent can tell what is removed (the registry entry, not the entity itself) without opening the 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 explicit when-to-use (status 'unavailable' with restored: true, or leftovers from a deleted device) and an explicit when-not with the named alternative: if the integration still provides the entity, 'disable it with ha_update_entity instead.' That is the full routing decision an agent needs.

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