Rename, move, disable or hide an entity

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantive context: the null-clears-to-default semantics, the side effect that renaming does not propagate to automations/scripts/dashboards, the functional difference between disabling (entity is not created) and hiding (merely off auto dashboards), and the required HA_ALLOW_CONFIG_WRITE (ha:config) authorization. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 what the tool changes, then the omit/null conventions, then the rename caveat, then the permission requirement. Three dense sentences, no filler, every clause carries operational information.

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 8-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: mutable fields, null/omit semantics, destructive side effects of renaming, disable-vs-hide behavior, and the required auth scope. Nothing critical is left implicit.

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 per-parameter meaning is already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds the general omission rule (omit = unchanged) and the null = reset convention at the tool level, plus the rename side-effect, which goes slightly beyond the per-field schema text.

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 (change) and resource (an entity's registry entry) and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable: display name, entity_id, area, icon, disabled/hidden. This distinguishes it cleanly from neighbors like ha_remove_entity and ha_get_entity_registry.

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 operating rules ('omit a field to leave it alone', 'pass null ... to clear it back to the default'), warns that renaming entity_id breaks automations/scripts/dashboards and points to ha_list_automations to check first, and explains the disable-vs-hide distinction. When-to-use and a concrete alternative are both present.

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