hmc_create_vios

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the VIOS is created powered off with default settings, that it is a real partition, and warns to confirm name/system_uuid before calling. This is useful behavioral context beyond just 'create'.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: units, power state, follow-up action, and a safety warning. It is appropriately sized for the complexity and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 params, no annotations), the description covers essential context: what it creates, how to find the system, defaults, and the necessary next step (install_vios). Output schema is present, so return values are not required. It could mention job execution or validation, but it is reasonably complete.

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 adds meaning for system_uuid (target managed system), memory (MiB), and procs (fractional units), but does not explain all 11 parameters. The defaults are in the schema, but relationships like min/desired/max are not clarified.

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 it creates a new Virtual IO Server (VIOS) partition on a managed system, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like hmc_create_lpar by specifying 'VIOS' and mentions it creates 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?

Provides explicit guidance on finding the target managed system via hmc_systems and instructs to install the OS with hmc_install_vios before use. This indicates a clear prerequisite and follow-up step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like hmc_create_lpar.

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