hmc_assign_profile_io_slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying chsyscfg command, the append behavior, the --force flag, and the UUID-to-name resolution with REST/SSH fallback. It does not cover error conditions or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a code block to show the executed command and then briefly explains behavior and edge cases. Every sentence contributes, though the UUID resolution detail adds some density.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description sufficiently covers what it does, how it executes, parameter flexibility, and the return value. It lacks explicit guidance on selecting this tool over siblings, but the operation is well-scoped and the output schema note is handled by the 'returns raw command output' statement.

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 already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that system and LPAR can be given as name or UUID and how UUIDs are resolved, providing extra meaning for system_name_or_uuid and lpar_name_or_uuid.

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 physical I/O slot DRC index to an LPAR's profile.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling adapter tools like hmc_add_network_adapter or hmc_add_vnic.

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 context about the operation and mentions 'Use --force to override any conflicts,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are referenced as alternatives.

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