hmc_create_media_repository

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions a key constraint (only one per VIOS) and the repository's role, but it does not mention potential side effects, required privileges, idempotency, or what happens if a repository already exists. This is partial but insufficient for a creation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a main sentence stating the action, followed by brief parameter notes and a constraint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 explains the core purpose and a key constraint, but it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., the Volume Group must exist), the meaning of vg_uuid, and the outcome of the operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other contextual details are missing.

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 has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains vios_name_or_uuid (accepts PartitionName or UUID, find with hmc_vios) and size_mb (RepositorySize), but provides no explanation for vg_uuid, leaving one of three parameters underspecified.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create the Virtual Media Repository (named VMLibrary) on a Volume Group.' It specifies the resource (Volume Group), the resulting object (VMLibrary), and its purpose (holding file-backed ISO images), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmc_delete_media_repository.

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 when to use the tool: it is for creating a repository that holds ISO images, with the constraint that only one can exist per VIOS. It also hints at dependency on hmc_vios to find the vios_name_or_uuid. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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