hmc_hmc_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool submits an asynchronous job (requiring polling) and explains wait behavior, and gives detailed repository format examples. It does not explicitly warn about potential HMC downtime or reversibility, but it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 but tightly packed; every sentence adds information about mode, repository types, job polling, or wait behavior. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with a nested repository object and 6 parameters, the description covers the key decision points: mode selection, repository structure, source of console_uuid, and asynchronous job handling. Output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. It is comprehensive enough to let an agent invoke it correctly.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'kind' values, illustrating 'repository' with three concrete examples, and clarifying 'console_uuid' origin from hmc_console_info and 'wait' semantics. It does not discuss 'poll_interval' or 'timeout_seconds', but these have defaults and are less ambiguous.

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 'Submit an HMC software update or upgrade job,' a clear verb+resource statement. It further distinguishes two modes (kind='update' installs PTFs; kind='upgrade' performs a full HMC version upgrade), making it distinct from sibling tools like hmc_vios_update or hmc_update_firmware.

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 explains when to use 'update' vs 'upgrade' and describes repository types with concrete examples. It also instructs to poll hmc_get_job for status and mentions 'Set wait=True to block until the job reaches a terminal state,' providing clear context for asynchronous operation. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for VIOS or firmware updates.

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