Remove Scene

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond that: the 405 failure mode for YAML scenes and the automation-breakage warning. However, the annotation set already carries the core safety signal, so the incremental disclosure is moderate rather than decisive.

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?

Purpose, example, error case and warning are front-loaded and tight. The closing Claude Desktop timeout/hang paragraph is client-specific and noticeably longer than the rest, but it does carry actionable operational content, so it isn't padding.

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 config mutation with an output schema present, this covers the failure mode (405 on YAML scenes), preconditions (UI-created only), the side-effect risk, and a recovery path on timeout. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so scene_id and the wait flag are already documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes scene_id in the example and says nothing about wait, which is the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource ("Delete a Home Assistant scene") and immediately bounds the scope: only UI-created scenes are deletable. That scope statement cleanly separates it from the get/set scene siblings and from remove_automation/remove_script.

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 states when-not to use it (YAML-defined scenes in scenes.yaml or configuration.yaml return 405) and names the alternative action (edit the configuration file directly). It also flags the downstream consequence of deleting a scene referenced via scene.turn_on.

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