CHAP: switch back

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond that by explaining WHAT is destroyed (changes on the standby since its last sync are left behind when now=true) and the default sync-back behavior first – exactly the added value the annotation bar asks for.

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 sentences, semantically front-loaded with the default behavior before the emergency variant. Slightly dense punctuation but no wasted words.

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?

No output schema, so the description needn't cover return values, and it covers the mutation semantics, the default, the emergency override, and the user-consent requirement. A note about prerequisites (e.g., that a standby must be linked) would complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, including a description for now that matches the prose. The description reinforces the tradeoff of now=true rather than introducing new syntax or defaults, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 back) and object (the home / its main install), and names the sibling counterpart by implication (vomehome_chap_switch is the forward direction). An agent can distinguish this from vomehome_chap_switch and vomehome_chap_link_standby.

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?

Clearly signals the emergency-only case for now=true and instructs 'Ask the user first', which is explicit when-to-use guidance. It doesn't enumerate the alternative (vomehome_chap_switch) but the direction is unambiguous.

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