check_set_new_host

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns no content on success and mirrors CMS error payloads with the CMS HTTP status when preconditions fail.

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 short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first and return behavior immediately after. The inline endpoint is slightly redundant but not harmful, and every sentence contributes useful context.

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 annotations covering safety and idempotency and no output schema, the description appropriately explains the success and error return behavior. It is nearly complete for an agent, though it could explicitly name the related relocation operation for clearer workflow context.

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 documented directly in the schema. The description mentions the instance context through the endpoint path but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking whether an instance can be moved to another host, with the exact GET endpoint. It clearly frames this as a precondition check before relocation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling relocation action (e.g., request_region_change) it pairs with.

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 phrase 'before relocating the instance from its current host' implies the intended usage context: run this check prior to a relocation operation. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the sibling action to use afterward, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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