hmc_add_network_adapter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses critical behavioral traits: DLPAR/RMC requirements for running LPARs, auto-assignment of slot numbers, auto-generation of MAC addresses, and the meaning of tagged mode. This provides operating knowledge beyond what the schema reveals.

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides functional value. It is structured as a compact paragraph with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the core operation, parameter meanings, and key constraints, with an output schema presumably handling return values. The DLPAR/RMC caveat adds important operational context. The only notable omission is the virtual_switch_id parameter explanation, but overall the tool is well-understood for an agent.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining most parameters: lpar_name_or_uuid (with a pointer to hmc_lpars), port_vlan_id (with VLAN/vSwitch context), slot_number (auto-assign if omitted), tagged, and mac_address. However, virtual_switch_id is not explicitly described, leaving a gap for that optional parameter.

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 opens with 'Add a Virtual Ethernet (client network) adapter to an LPAR,' which clearly states the action and target. It differentiates from sibling adapter-add tools (vscsi, vfc) by specifying the adapter type and referencing virtual network attachment.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (attaching an LPAR to a virtual network) and a key conditional guideline: modifying a running LPAR is a DLPAR operation requiring active RMC. It doesn't explicitly compare against alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous enough for tool selection.

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