Manage HACS

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, and the description adds important context: this tool performs writes, and installing integrations may require a restart, while new Lovelace cards need a browser cache clear.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, examples, and caveats. Front-loaded with main purpose, 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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, 2 actions), the description is complete with examples, caveats, and references to the sibling tool. All necessary information is provided.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining which parameters go with each action, providing examples, and clarifying that repository_id accepts numeric HACS ID or owner/repo, and add_repository requires owner/repo format plus matching category.

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 it manages HACS by installing/updating or adding custom repositories, and distinguishes from the sibling ha_get_hacs_info which is for searching/reading.

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 to use this tool (for writes) and when to use ha_get_hacs_info (for search/read), plus provides usage notes about restart and cache clearing.

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