Call Home Assistant Supervisor API

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the raw danger is flagged. The description usefully adds an environment prerequisite and the ha:config auth requirement for mutations, but it does not warn that arbitrary DELETE/PUT endpoints can remove add-ons or repositories, nor describe how errors surface.

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 front-loaded sentences: what it does, then prerequisites, then the use case. No filler, though the parenthetical example list is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 an open-world passthrough with no output schema and destructive annotations, the definition covers prerequisites but never explains what the call returns (raw API JSON) or how failures behave. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 endpoint, method, data, and instance_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description's path examples largely duplicate the endpoint parameter's own example, adding little beyond the baseline.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Call a Supervisor endpoint through ... supervisor/api WebSocket command') and grounds it with concrete path examples (/addons, /store/addons, /store/repositories). It is clearly an escape hatch to the raw Supervisor API, which distinguishes it from structured siblings like ha_hacs_list_repositories, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It gives real context: prerequisites ('Requires a Supervised / HAOS install and ha:config for mutating methods') and a stated use case ('Use this for add-on store operations'). It does not name exclusions or point to the more specific HACS/add-on siblings, so it falls 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.