hmc_install_vios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the PXE-boot mechanism, the job submission nature, and the wait behavior. However, it does not explicitly warn that the installation will overwrite the VIOS's existing OS, nor does it mention any permission requirements. The timeout definition is also slightly misleading given the presence of timeout_seconds.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a clear per-parameter explanation and a note on wait behavior. It is a bit long but every sentence carries information; no redundant fluff. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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 a 10-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the main workflow, prerequisites, network configuration, and how to obtain the result. It misses two parameters and leaves the timeout/timeout_seconds ambiguity unresolved. Also lacks side-effect warnings. Overall it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 8 of 10 parameters (vios_uuid, nim_ip, nim_gateway, nim_subnetmask, vios_ip, vlan_id, timeout, wait) with meaningful semantics. It omits poll_interval and timeout_seconds, and does not clarify the relationship between timeout (minutes) and timeout_seconds (seconds), which is a notable gap.

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+resource: 'Submit a NIM-based VIOS installation job.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like hmc_install_lpar_os (for LPARs) and hmc_create_vios (for creating a partition) by focusing on installing the OS on an existing VIOS via NIM. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides clear context: vios_uuid must be an existing powered-off VIOS partition. Also states the follow-up action ('poll hmc_get_job for status') and the wait=True option to block until terminal state. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for similar tasks, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over the many siblings.

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