hmc_deploy_partition_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that this is an asynchronous operation ('Submits a Deploy job; poll hmc_get_job for status') and explains the wait behavior ('Set wait=True to block until the job reaches a terminal state'). This goes beyond a simple one-liner and gives the agent a clear mental model of the execution flow. It doesn't detail permissions or side effects, but the async job pattern is a key behavioral trait well covered here.

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 concise and well-structured: a lead line stating the action, then clarification of the two required UUIDs, then the job submission/polling behavior, and finally the wait option. Each sentence adds needed context, with no fluff. It uses formatting effectively for readability.

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 (async job, 5 parameters, output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the workflow (deploy from draft template, submit job, poll, wait), clarifies the two required params, and covers the wait flag. It doesn't mention potential prerequisites like system state or template compatibility, but the output schema may capture return values, and the description suffices for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is lack of explicit exclusions, but overall it's quite solid.

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, so the description must compensate. It does for the essential parameters: draft_template_uuid is explained as the transformed/replica template UUID from capture/transform, and target_system_uuid as the managed system to create the partition on. It also adds semantics for wait=True. The remaining params (poll_interval, timeout_seconds) are conventional and self-explanatory from their names, and the description's coverage of the most critical parameters is sufficient to use the tool correctly.

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's purpose: 'Deploy a partition from a *draft* partition template.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like hmc_partition_templates (listing templates) and hmc_create_lpar (creating an LPAR directly). The emphasis on 'draft' template further clarifies the exact 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?

The description gives clear context about when to use the tool (when you have a draft template and a target system) and provides operational guidance (submits a Deploy job, poll hmc_get_job, set wait=True). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like hmc_provision_lpar or hmc_create_lpar. It's more than vague implication but lacks direct comparison.

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