CHAP: pair both installs

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the operation is a multi-step pairing-plus-backup-seed, it runs for several minutes, and it establishes an ongoing synchronization relationship rather than a one-shot action.

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, with the core action front-loaded and the operational notes (duration, follow-up) trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only guide to behavior, yet it omits failure behavior, reversibility, and prerequisites (e.g., whether both installs must already be enrolled, or whether the standby's existing data is lost). The duration and follow-up hints help, but for a destructive pair-and-sync operation the definition is only minimally complete.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that instance_id is the main install's id sourced from vomehome_list_instances. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 names a specific verb and resource ('pair both installs with Vome') and expands on what that entails: seeding the standby from a one-off backup of the main install and then keeping it in step. This composite scope hints at how it differs from the narrower chap_enrol/chap_link_standby siblings, but it never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly.

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 useful workflow positioning ('follow it with vomehome_chap_status') and an effort estimate ('takes a few minutes'), but offers no when-to-use or when-not versus the other CHAP tools; an agent must infer the ordering from the surrounding family.

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