hmc_dlpar_proc

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the responsibility and does so thoroughly. It discloses that only passed fields are changed, explains the fractional vs integer semantics for procs/vcpus, clarifies the dedicated parameter controls sharing mode, and reveals the profile-only behavior when RMC is inactive. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 well-structured: it leads with a one-sentence purpose, then a parameter-semantics paragraph, and finishes with a behavioral note about RMC. Every sentence contributes value 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 9-parameter schema, no annotations, and an output schema that covers return values, the description provides essential context: purpose, key parameter distinctions, and the critical RMC edge case. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains lpar_name_or_uuid, distinguishes procs (fractional) from vcpus (integer), and clarifies the dedicated flag. However, it does not individually describe max_procs, min_procs, desired_procs, max_vcpus, min_vcpus, desired_vcpus, or uncapped, leaving some parameter semantics under-specified.

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 immediately states 'DLPAR processor hot-plug: change CPU resources on a running LPAR', which clearly identifies the verb (change), resource (CPU resources), and scope (running LPAR). This distinguishes it from the sibling hmc_dlpar_mem (memory) 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 for when to use this tool: for changing CPU resources on a running LPAR. It also explains the behavioral implication of an inactive RMC connection (profile-only change). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like hmc_modify_lpar or hmc_dlpar_mem, so it lacks direct exclusions.

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