hmc_delete_lpar

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: the operation is irreversible, removes the partition and its profiles, refuses to run unless the state is 'not activated', and raises HMCError with HTTP 409 for that condition. It also explains the immediate return behavior, which is not captured by annotations.

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 multi-paragraph yet every sentence contributes value: preconditions, verification, irreversibility, return behavior, parameter format, and error condition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into clear sections (parameter, raises) without 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and preconditions, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, when it can be called, how to verify the target, what it returns, and when it errors. The presence of an output schema covers return structure, so the description's mention of a confirmation string is complementary and not overdone.

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 describes the parameter only as a required string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that lpar_name_or_uuid accepts either a PartitionName or a UUID, giving semantic meaning beyond the schema. While it doesn't detail formats or validation rules, this is sufficient for a single simple identifier.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Delete (destroy)') and clearly identifies the resource (an LPAR) and the identifier method (by name or UUID). This sets it apart from sibling delete tools like hmc_delete_user and hmc_delete_vios.

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?

It explicitly states the precondition that the partition must be powered off, and names the exact tools to use for that (hmc_power_off_lpar and hmc_lpars to confirm state). It also advises confirming the target with hmc_lpars before calling and clarifies that no job polling is needed, helping the agent choose this over job-based tools.

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