Finish the Home Assistant setup wizard

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorld=true), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it states the required 'ha:config' scope, explains the default behavior when core_config is omitted, and justifies why provisioning skips this step. It stops short of describing whether the wizard step is reversible or what happens on partial failure.

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 purpose and outcome, then restrictions, then the parameter decision — a logical order. It is four sentences for a two-parameter tool, slightly more talkative than strictly necessary, but every sentence carries a distinct decision.

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?

No output schema exists and the description does not describe the return, but for a simple completion action the agent mostly needs when-to-run, auth scope, and the core_config default — all present. Minor gap: no statement of what a failure or already-completed onboarding returns.

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% and core_config already carries a description, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the semantic consequence of omitting core_config ('Home Assistant keeps what it detected, which is a safer default than a confidently wrong location') and by sequencing it before the step is completed.

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 ('Finish the outstanding setup-wizard steps on a VomeHome instance') plus the concrete outcome ('opens on a dashboard rather than the wizard'). It also implicitly separates itself from the read-side sibling vomehome_get_onboarding and from provisioning, which 'deliberately never does this'.

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 an explicit target audience ('a home being set up for other people to look at — a demo should not greet a stranger with a setup form') and an explicit precondition ('only run it for a home whose setup you are responsible for'). It also routes the agent on a secondary choice: pass core_config to set location/units first, or omit it to preserve detected values.

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