hmc_migrate_lpar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool submits an asynchronous Migrate job, that wait=True blocks until completion states, and that the job status is polled via hmc_get_job. It also mentions optional target profile pinning and timeout behavior. It doesn't mention potential side effects like downtime, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, then logically flows into parameter explanations and workflow. It is somewhat long but each sentence adds value, covering asynchronicity, prerequisites, and optional waiting. It could be tightened with bullet points but is still well organized.

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 tool's complexity (LPAR migration with async job), the description covers the essential workflow: validate first, submit job, poll status, and optionally wait. It mentions output indirectly by telling to poll hmc_get_job. Since an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained. Missing are potential error scenarios or prerequisites like LPAR state, but overall it is a complete guide for most use cases.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains lpar_name_or_uuid (PartitionName or UUID, find with hmc_lpars), target_system, target_profile, wait, and timeout_seconds. It also vaguely references wait_time. However, poll_interval is not described at all, and wait_time vs timeout_seconds is ambiguous, creating a 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 clearly states 'Live-migrate (LPM) an LPAR to another managed system', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hmc_migrate_validate_lpar by explicitly instructing to 'Run hmc_migrate_validate_lpar first to pre-check', and from abort/recover by focusing on the migration job submission.

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 the tool: to live-migrate an LPAR. It gives an explicit prerequisite ('Run hmc_migrate_validate_lpar first') and explains the async workflow (submit job, poll hmc_get_job, optionally wait). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for validation only), which would make it a 5.

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