hmc_migrate_recover_lpar

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'recover' without explaining side effects, required permissions, or what state changes occur. This is insufficient for a recovery operation.

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 with purpose first, then parameter explanation. No filler or redundancy.

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 it's a recovery tool with a single parameter, the description is minimal. It doesn't mention what recovery entails, whether it's asynchronous, or if a job ID is returned (despite having an output schema). This is a moderate gap.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains that the parameter accepts either a PartitionName or UUID and points to hmc_lpars for discovery. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't clarify the parameter's role in recovery.

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 'Recover an LPAR after a failed LPM migration' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like migrate/validate/abort, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use ('after a failed LPM migration'), and gives a hint to use hmc_lpars for finding the parameter. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, 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.