hmc_backup_lpar_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral details: it runs 'bkprofdata' via SSH, returns raw command output, resolves UUIDs via REST with a fallback to lssyscfg, and clarifies that the backup file is created on the HMC host. This is substantial transparency, though it doesn't address failure modes or file-overwrite behavior.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, the exact command, the name-resolution detail, and a bolded critical caveat. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy or fluff, and the most important note is visually highlighted.

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 command execution, output behavior, argument resolution, and the remote-path caveat. Given that an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. It lacks explicit prerequisites or failure semantics, but for a backup CLI tool the described context is largely sufficient.

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 already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds non-obvious semantics by explaining how UUIDs are resolved to CLI names and emphasizing that file_path is on the HMC filesystem, which goes beyond the schema's static field descriptions. It earns extra credit for this context.

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 ('Backup') and resource ('all LPAR profiles') on a Power system via the HMC CLI, clearly distinguishing it from restore or sync operations. The underlying command and scope are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context, including that the system may be specified by name or UUID, and that the file path is on the HMC filesystem. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for restore/sync or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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