Remove Automation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it emphasizes deletion is permanent, explains the returned automation_id resolution/fallback behavior, and documents a known Claude Desktop timeout hang. It stops short of stating required permissions or auth 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?

The purpose leads, followed by return semantics and compact examples, so it is well front-loaded. The trailing Claude Desktop timeout workaround is a fairly dense tangent that lengthens the definition, though it is framed as actionable and call-specific.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, yet it usefully clarifies the automation_id resolution anyway. Between annotations covering destructiveness/idempotency and examples covering argument forms, an agent has what it needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the dual identifier semantics (entity_id or unique_id) and its fallback return behavior but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 (Delete) and resource (Home Assistant automation) plus the permanence qualifier, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like ha_config_get_automation and ha_config_set_automation 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 EXAMPLES block gives concrete invocation patterns (by entity_id and by unique_id) that clarify when to reach for it, and 'permanently' implies this is not the tool for reversible toggling. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. disable vs delete) or states when not to use it.

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