hmc_dlpar_mem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers important behavioral details: memory values are in MiB, only passed fields are changed, and the RMC connection condition yields profile-only changes without a reboot. It does not disclose permissions, error cases, or return behavior, but the core side effects are well explained.

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 four concise sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, parameter flexibility, units/update behavior, and RMC caveat. No filler or repetition; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool is moderately complex with a conditional behavior profile, and the description covers the key operational context (running LPAR, profile-only fallback, units, partial updates). An output schema exists, so return values are not the description's responsibility. Missing prerequisites like required permissions or HMC version are minor gaps.

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 lpar_name_or_uuid (PartitionName or UUID) and that memory values are in MiB, with only passed fields being changed. It does not individually describe min_memory, max_memory, and desired_memory, but their meaning is standard and the null default is clarified by the 'only fields you pass are changed' statement.

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 explicitly states 'DLPAR memory hot-plug: change memory resources on a running LPAR,' which names the specific verb (change/hot-plug) and resource (memory on an LPAR). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool hmc_dlpar_proc (CPU) and other LPAR modification tools.

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 clear context about when to use the tool ('on a running LPAR') and the conditional RMC connection behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like hmc_dlpar_proc for CPU or hmc_modify_lpar for general changes, so some ambiguity remains for an agent deciding among siblings.

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