hmc_create_optical_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that only blank media can be created and describes parameter acceptance for vios_name_or_uuid, but it omits behavioral details like whether the operation creates a job, requires a pre-existing volume group (vg_uuid), or has other side effects. The disclosed constraints are useful but incomplete.

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: first sentence states the purpose, second sentence clarifies the key identifier parameter, and third sentence covers the remaining parameters 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 covers the core action and several parameter semantics, but it omits the role of vg_uuid entirely and does not mention whether the operation is asynchronous or returns a job ID. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered, but the missing parameter and operational context leave gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 the meaning of vios_name_or_uuid (PartitionName or UUID), media_name (file name), and size_mb (MediaSize). However, vg_uuid is left unexplained, so it does not fully cover all four parameters. Given the high gap in schema, this is still a solid contribution.

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 tool's function: 'Create a blank VirtualOpticalMedia (ISO container) in the media repository.' It uses a specific verb (create) and a specific resource (VirtualOpticalMedia), and the distinction from sibling tools like create_virtual_disk is evident from the phrasing.

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 a constraint ('Only blank media can be created via the API') and a hint for finding the vios_name_or_uuid parameter (hmc_vios), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_virtual_disk or create_media_repository, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites like an existing media repository.

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