hmc_delete_adapter

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

With destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds that the operation detaches storage/network and returns a confirmation string immediately with no job to poll. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 action, followed by a concise parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value without fluff, making it easy for the agent to parse.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose, parameter sourcing, valid values, and result semantics. The output schema exists and the description states the return format. No critical information is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 0% description coverage, but the description explains each of the three parameters: lpar_name_or_uuid accepts name or UUID, adapter_type lists valid values, and adapter_uuid is obtained via hmc_list_adapters. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 removes a virtual adapter from an LPAR by UUID, listing accepted adapter types. This distinguishes it from sibling add/remove tools like hmc_add_network_adapter or hmc_remove_vnic.

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 how to find parameters (hmc_lpars for LPAR name/UUID, hmc_list_adapters for adapter UUID) and clarifies the effect (detaches storage/network). It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' alternative, 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.