CHAP: link a standby

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing required preconditions and the mandatory follow-up call to vomehome_chap_pair, though it never says what 'linking' overwrites on the target install. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the follow-up step and the precondition. No filler, though the parenthetical definition slightly interrupts the flow.

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 only two fully-documented parameters, an output schema absent and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the operational context an agent needs: preconditions and the required next call. It is essentially complete for this tool's complexity.

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%, so both install_id and instance_id are already documented in the schema (including the source tool for the id). The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Make another of the user's house installs this home's standby') and clarifies the domain term with a parenthetical definition ('its local fallback'). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with vomehome_chap_unlink_standby or the pairing tool it references.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing ('Then call vomehome_chap_pair to pair both and fill the standby') and preconditions ('The standby must already be connected to Vome and running the Vome CHAP add-on'). What's missing is an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative, 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.