CHAP: turn on monitoring

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context (what is turned on, prerequisite ordering) but never explains why an 'enable' operation is flagged destructive, whether it overwrites existing state, or whether it can be undone — a notable gap given there is no un-enrol sibling.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and the ordering prerequisite. It leaves the destructive/reversibility semantics unexplained, which matters because annotations flag destructiveHint=true with no visible way to reverse it.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single instance_id parameter, including its source tool (vomehome_list_instances). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Turn on') plus resource (CHAP for an instance) and clarifies what enabling it produces: heartbeats and outage alerts. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by naming the follow-on operation (linking a standby), though it does not explicitly contrast with vomehome_chap_status or the other chap_* tools by name.

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?

'Needed before a standby can be linked' gives a clear precondition that tells the agent when this tool is the right one, and it implicitly routes the agent to vomehome_chap_link_standby afterward. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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