Remove Area or Floor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: what is unassigned rather than deleted, the risk to automations, and a client-specific timeout/hang workaround for Claude Desktop. This is real operational context the structured fields cannot convey.

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 core removal semantics and cascading effects are front-loaded in short, high-value sentences. The final Claude Desktop workaround paragraph is longer and narrower in applicability, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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 destructive annotations, a full schema, and an output schema present, the description only needs to supply side effects and caveats — which it does thoroughly, including what is and isn't deleted and downstream automation impact.

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% and both parameters are well documented in the schema (including the pointer to ha_list_floors_areas for IDs). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove') and resource (Home Assistant area or floor), and the kind enum makes the dual scope explicit. An agent can distinguish it from ha_set_area_or_floor and ha_list_floors_areas without opening any 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?

Explains the consequences of use (entities/devices unassigned but not deleted, automations may break), which tells the agent when this operation is appropriate and when to warn the user. It does not explicitly name alternatives or preconditions (e.g., 'use ha_list_floors_areas first'), so it stops short of a 5.

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