CHAP: stop using the standby

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and open-world, but the description adds material context beyond them: it can be refused while the standby is running the home, and the Home Assistant stays stopped until the user starts it. This is useful behavioral disclosure for a destructive unlink operation. It does not contradict 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the refusal condition, then the side effect. Every sentence adds information and nothing is wasted.

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 destructive CHAP tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what it stops, when it will be refused, and the resulting HA state. A little more detail on reversibility or reinstatement would make it fully complete, but no critical gap prevents correct invocation.

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%, and the single instance_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as coming from vomehome_list_instances. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb (stop using) and resource (linked house standby or local fallback), and the tool name/title make the opposite of vomehome_chap_link_standby clear. It is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from the link/switch CHAP siblings without opening schemas.

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?

The description states a refusal condition ('Refused while it is running the home') but does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as vomehome_chap_switch_back or vomehome_chap_link_standby. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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