hmc_add_vfc_adapter

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses 'The HMC generates the WWPNs' and clarifies server-side vs client-side roles. However, it does not mention whether the LPAR must be powered off, whether the operation is asynchronous (e.g., returns a job), or any permission requirements—common gaps for a mutation tool without 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?

The description is about 70 words and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: the main action, parameter semantics, and usage guidance. No filler or redundancy, though the parameter explanations could be more structured.

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 tool with four parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers the core concept and three of four parameters. It fails to explain slot_number and doesn't mention whether the operation is asynchronous (common for HMC jobs) or if there are prerequisites (e.g., LPAR existence, VIOS readiness). The output schema may document return values, but the description leaves these gaps.

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 must compensate. It explains lpar_name_or_uuid (accepts PartitionName or UUID, find with hmc_lpars), vios_partition_id (integer PartitionID of serving VIOS), and vios_slot (server-side virtual FC slot number). Critically, it omits slot_number, which remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 Fibre Channel (NPIV) client adapter to an LPAR,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and target. It explicitly distinguishes from vSCSI with 'instead of vSCSI,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like hmc_add_vscsi_adapter.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for SAN storage via NPIV instead of vSCSI.' It also instructs finding lpar_name_or_uuid via hmc_lpars, providing a lookup path. However, it doesn't enumerate other exclusions or prerequisites beyond this alternative.

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