remove_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 so well: it discloses the cascade effect (devices and entities removed from the registries), declares irreversibility, and gives the recovery path (re-add via Settings). This is exactly the behavioral context a destructive mutation needs.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then effects, then recovery. Every clause adds decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 cascade, irreversibility, and recovery guidance make the call semantics clear. The remaining gap is the source/format of entry_id, which an agent needs to actually invoke the tool.

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 entry_id parameter, and the description never explains what an entry_id is or how to obtain one (e.g., via list_config_entries). Only the implicit link of 'integration' to the identifier gives any hint.

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 ('Fully remove an integration') and its scope, which cleanly separates it from the sibling tools that merely disable, enable, or reload config entries. An agent can identify the operation without 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?

The word 'Fully' and the note that restoring requires re-adding the integration imply this differs from the reversible disable/enable siblings, but no sibling is named and no condition for choosing removal over disabling is stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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