hmc_migrate_abort_lpar

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that the migration is 'in-progress' but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or error behavior beyond what annotations already provide.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and then give parameter detail with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and annotation, the description covers purpose and parameter enough; it doesn't elaborate on error states or return values, but that is covered elsewhere.

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?

The input schema provides only a bare string property, but the description clarifies that the parameter accepts either a PartitionName or UUID and tells how to find it using hmc_lpars, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific action 'Abort an in-progress LPM migration' with a clear resource (LPAR), and the verb 'Abort' distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmc_migrate_validate_lpar and hmc_migrate_recover_lpar.

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 implies use when an LPM migration is in progress, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like hmc_migrate_recover_lpar or provide exclusions.

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