Delete an entity state

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds concrete consequence detail ('Irreversible: the entity and its attributes are gone') plus a precondition not encoded anywhere in structured fields (integration-backed entities are rejected). It does not address failure/idempotency behavior for repeat deletes.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the irreversibility warning comes early where it matters. The 'Args: entityId' fragment is slightly redundant padding against a schema that already names the parameter.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations that already flag destructiveness, the description covers origin, irreversibility, and the integration-backed restriction. It omits only error behavior on already-deleted or unknown ids, a minor gap.

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% for the single entityId parameter, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. 'Args: entityId' restates it without adding format, source, or lookup guidance, which matches the baseline 3.

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 (entity created through ha_set_state), and explicitly names its counterpart tool, letting an agent distinguish it from siblings like ha_set_state and ha_get_state without opening a 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?

Provides a clear precondition and implicit exclusion: only works on entities created via ha_set_state and not backed by an integration. It stops short of telling the agent what to do with integration-backed entities (the alternative path), so it is not fully at the 5 level.

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