hmc_add_vscsi_adapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that slot_number is auto-assigned if omitted and that storage devices are mapped on the VIOS afterward, which adds value. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is asynchronous, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like modifying existing adapters.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then explains each parameter in a clear, sequential manner. Every sentence contributes useful information; there is no filler. The line breaks for parameters improve scannability.

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 complexity of adding a vSCSI adapter with dependencies on VIOS and slot numbers, the description covers the key relationships and next steps. It also references sibling tools for lookup. However, it omits important operational context like whether the operation is long-running or reversible, especially since no annotations exist to cover these aspects.

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 schema provides no descriptions for its 4 parameters (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter's meaning, how to obtain it (e.g., 'find it with hmc_lpars'), and clarifies the auto-assignment behavior of slot_number. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Virtual SCSI client adapter to an LPAR, paired to a VIOS.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmc_add_network_adapter and hmc_add_vfc_adapter by specifying the adapter type and VIOS pairing.

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 on how to find required identifiers using hmc_lpars and hmc_vios, and explains the relationship between the VIOS, slot number, and backing storage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical invocation.

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