disable_config_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a soft/reversible disable, that devices and entities become unavailable, and that registry entries persist. It omits permission requirements and what happens to dependent automations, but the core side effects are clearly conveyed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by a tight parenthetical clarifying the exact consequence. No wasted words.

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?

Behavior is well covered for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, but the required entry_id is left completely unexplained and there is no guidance on obtaining it or on the counterpart enable operation. Adequate but with a clear hole.

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?

The single entry_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds nothing about it — no format, no hint that it comes from list_config_entries. With one undocumented parameter and no compensating text, this is a real 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+resource ('Soft-disable an integration') and immediately scopes the effect: devices/entities go unavailable but registry entries remain. This implicitly distinguishes it from remove_config_entry and delete operations, though it never names a sibling explicitly, which keeps it short of the top band.

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?

The contrast with removal is implied ('registry entries remain'), which hints at when to prefer this over remove_config_entry, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to enable_config_entry as the reverse operation. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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