he_change_exchange_home

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation (change) and emphasizes the need for user confirmation, which is good. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., notifications, reversibility) or confirm if the operation is safe/non-destructive. The transparency is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide actionable guidance and a critical confirmation note. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has two simple parameters, no output schema, and is a straightforward mutation, the description provides enough context to use it correctly. It covers preconditions, parameter sourcing, and a required confirmation step. Missing potential return value info, but not critical.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining how to find the exchange ID (from all_exchanges array) and that the homeId is a new proposal. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent retrieve the right ID.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose (change the proposed home in an exchange) and distinguishes it from siblings like he_change_exchange_type. It specifies the verb 'Change' and the resource 'which home is proposed in an exchange', and mentions the requirement that the user be the host, adding specificity.

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 explicitly tells when to use (to change the proposed home in an exchange where the user is host), how to get the exchange ID (from all_exchanges array, find host=you), and includes an important instruction to ask user confirmation. This provides clear guidance on preconditions and workflow.

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