Revoke a guest link

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

With destructiveHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description still adds meaningful value: it specifies exactly what is destroyed (the HA user, invalidating all credentials and tokens) and that repeated calls are a no-op. This is the context an agent needs before firing a destructive operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequence, followed by the idempotency note. Every clause earns its place.

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, but the description covers the mutation's effect, its blast radius, and its retry safety — everything an agent needs to invoke a destructive two-parameter tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, which already documents both link_id and instance_id with their sources. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Revoke a guest link') and goes further by explaining the mechanism — deleting the underlying Home Assistant user — which distinguishes it cleanly from sibling user-management tools like ha_delete_user.

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?

Provides clear operational context: 'Safe to call on an already-revoked link (no-op)', which tells the agent idempotency behavior and removes hesitation about retries. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when *not* to use it, 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.