hmc_create_lpar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that a real partition is created, that it starts powered off with a default profile, that storage/network/boot must still be configured, that names must be unique across the HMC, and that a ValueError is raised on duplicates. It also explains shared vs dedicated processor behavior and unit semantics.

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 well-organized into focused paragraphs: overview, parameter clarifications, state and side-effect warnings, error condition, and enum definitions. Every sentence adds value, and it remains readable despite covering many details.

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 complex 18-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the description provides strong context: post-creation steps, uniqueness constraints, error behavior, and processor/memory units. It is incomplete in that it doesn't explain all parameters (e.g., uncapped, min/max/desired values) and doesn't mention whether the operation is synchronous or returns a job, which is relevant given sibling job-tracking tools.

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 key non-obvious semantics: system_name_or_uuid format and lookup, MiB units, dedicated vs shared processor meaning, procs/vcpus interpretation, and enums for partition_type, os_type, and keylock. However, several parameters (uncapped, min/max/desired values, partition_id) are left without explicit explanation, relying on their names for meaning.

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+resource ('Create a new LPAR on a managed system') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like hmc_modify_lpar, hmc_delete_lpar, and hmc_power_on_lpar. It clearly scopes the action as creation of a real partition.

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 context about when to use this tool (to create a new LPAR) and explains the resulting state (powered off, needs further config), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as hmc_create_vios for VIOS partitions or hmc_provision_lpar for OS installation.

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