ha_delete_state

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

With no annotations, the description has full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete' without explaining consequences (e.g., irreversibility, impact on history, or related entities). This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete for basic usage. However, it omits any mention of return values or error conditions, which would be useful for a delete operation.

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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter ('Entity ID to delete') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so it earns a baseline score.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('entity state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ha_set_state (create/update) and ha_get_states (read). It is specific and 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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., ha_set_state or other delete tools). It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, leaving the agent to infer context.

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