hmc_create_volume_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the prerequisite that physical volumes must be free and the outcome (pools disks for carving virtual disks), but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or error conditions. Some transparency is present, but not comprehensive.

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 with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, giving parameter details and prerequisite discovery without fluff. Ideal length for a 3-parameter tool.

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 purpose, parameter semantics for two of three parameters, and prerequisite discovery. Output schema exists so return values need not be described. It lacks side-effect disclosure and the name parameter explanation, but is otherwise complete enough for a simple create operation.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains vios_name_or_uuid (accepts PartitionName or UUID, find with hmc_vios) and physical_volumes (list of free PV names, example provided, how to find). However, the 'name' parameter is not explained, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 specific action ('Create a Volume Group on a VIOS from one or more physical volumes') with a distinct verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hmc_list_volume_groups and hmc_create_virtual_disk by describing the exact creation scope.

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 practical guidance on finding the VIOS (via hmc_vios) and free physical volumes (via GetFreePhysicalVolumes or lspv), and explains the purpose of pooling disks for virtual disk creation. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but gives clear context for when to use this operation.

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