Remove an entity from the Home Assistant registry; if an active integration owns it, use delete_device or remove_config_entry instead to avoid re-adding on reload.
Remove an entity from the registry. Active integrations may re-add
it on reload — use delete_device or remove_config_entry instead
if the entity belongs to a still-active integration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: active integrations may re-add the entity on reload, making the deletion effectively non-durable. It stops short of stating whether device/config entries are also removed, error behavior for unknown ids, or required permissions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed immediately by the caveat and routing. No filler and nothing redundant with the name.
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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the key reversal caveat but omits what exactly is destroyed, whether devices/config entries are affected, and any confirmation or permission requirement. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0% for the single required parameter entity_id, and the description never mentions the parameter or its expected format (registry entity id vs. entity name vs. device id). With one undocumented param, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Remove an entity from the registry') that an agent can immediately distinguish from nearby siblings like delete_device and remove_config_entry. The scope is unambiguous and does not require 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?
Explicitly names two alternative tools and the exact condition that selects them ('if the entity belongs to a still-active integration'). This is the strongest form of when-to-use guidance: alternative named plus the selecting condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.