hmc_map_storage_to_lpar

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It explains storage_kind semantics and the optional target_device pinning, and names the vSCSI prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission needs, or asynchronous behavior. 'Map' implies mutation, yet transparency beyond that is limited.

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 a structured, front-loaded paragraph followed by parameter-by-parameter explanations. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, though it is longer than the minimal two-sentence style.

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 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, prerequisite, and sibling references. It is slightly incomplete in that it doesn't mention whether the operation returns a job or is synchronous, but an output schema exists and the operational details provided are strong.

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%, but the description compensates fully: it explains vios_name_or_uuid and lpar_name_or_uuid accept PartitionName or UUID, expands each storage_kind enum value, defines storage_name, and clarifies target_device is optional for pinning the vtscsi device name.

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 'Map backing storage to an LPAR via a Virtual SCSI mapping on a VIOS,' providing a specific verb, resource, and method. It clearly distinguishes the tool from related storage/adapter operations like hmc_create_virtual_disk and hmc_add_vscsi_adapter.

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 states a hard prerequisite: 'The LPAR must already have a vSCSI adapter paired to this VIOS — see hmc_add_vscsi_adapter.' It also points to hmc_vios and hmc_lpars for finding identifiers. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use alternative, but the context is clear.

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