hmc_create_virtual_disk

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the disk becomes backing storage and specifies capacity units, which adds some context. However, it does not disclose whether the create operation is asynchronous, what side effects occur beyond creation, or any permission/authorization requirements, leaving a transparency gap for a mutation 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 a compact paragraph with the core purpose first, followed by parameter-specific guidance. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 main workflow (create then attach), parameter discovery references, and unit specification. It does not mention prerequisites like needing a valid Volume Group state or whether the disk becomes immediately available, but for a create tool with an output schema, it is mostly 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 compensates by explaining vios_name_or_uuid (accepts PartitionName or UUID, find via hmc_vios), capacity_mb (size in MiB), and vg_uuid (find via hmc_list_volume_groups). The disk_name parameter is left undefined, but three of four parameters are enriched.

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 first sentence clearly states the action: 'Create a Virtual Disk (logical volume) inside a Volume Group.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('inside a Volume Group') distinguishes it from siblings like hmc_create_volume_group or hmc_map_storage_to_lpar.

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 contextual workflow guidance: the disk becomes backing storage to be attached to an LPAR via hmc_map_storage_to_lpar, and tells how to find vg_uuid with hmc_list_volume_groups. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or exclusion against alternatives, but the context is clear.

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