Manage HACS

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds crucial caveats: the need for restart after installing integrations, browser cache clearing for Lovelace cards, the fact that removing an integration leaves the module loaded until restart, and the 48-hour refresh interval. This context is not inferred from annotations.

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 description is long but well-structured with a summary, examples, and caveats. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened without losing critical information. It is not needlessly verbose for the tool's complexity.

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?

All actions, parameter combinations, and edge cases are covered. The caveats address real-world operational concerns, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. The description is self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

While the schema documents each parameter, the description adds meaningful semantics: it maps actions to parameters, clarifies that repository_id accepts numeric or owner/repo, and explains that add_repository requires owner/repo plus a matching category. Concrete examples illustrate correct usage beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool manages HACS with specific actions: install/update, remove, add repositories, and refresh. It also distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling tool ha_get_hacs_info, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it names ha_get_hacs_info as the alternative for search/read, and explains when to use each action (e.g., update_information to surface a recent release because HACS refreshes every ~48 hours). This goes beyond mere function listing.

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