CHAP: switch to the standby

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by describing what actually happens (the main install stops, the standby starts). It adds useful process and cancel semantics beyond the annotation flags, though it omits failure/rollback behavior.

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 dense sentences that front-load the action and its maintenance purpose, with cancel and the safety warning following. Slightly run-on, but 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 destructive switch operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, process order, the cancel escape hatch, and a user-consent warning. Missing details on duration, failure handling, or post-switch state keep it short of a 5.

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 coverage is 100% so the parameters are already documented, but the description adds real nuance: cancel only applies to a switch 'still waiting for the changes', which the schema description doesn't convey. instance_id is left to the schema, hence not a 5.

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 (switch/move) and resource (the home to the standby) and details the exact sequence (changes flow first, standby starts, main stops). The direction ('to the standby') clearly separates it from the reverse sibling vomehome_chap_switch_back even though that sibling isn't named.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('on purpose (for maintenance)') and an explicit precondition ('Ask the user before switching a real home'). It does not name switch_back as the alternative operation, so the when-not side is only implied.

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