hmc_migrate_validate_lpar

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds valuable context by mentioning that validation runs as a job and that wait=True blocks until a terminal state. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is non-destructive, any prerequisites, or permission requirements.

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 three sentences with the purpose first, followed by essential parameter specifics. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The core purpose is clear, but the description is thin for a 7-parameter tool. It omits important context like whether validation modifies anything, how to interpret the validation output (though an output schema exists), and the meaning of target_profile_name. It also does not connect to the actual migration workflow.

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?

Only lpar_name_or_uuid and wait are explained, with clear detail about accepted name/UUID formats and wait blocking behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate for all parameters, but target_system, target_profile_name, wait_time, poll_interval, and timeout_seconds are left to names/defaults only.

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 'Validate whether an LPM migration of an LPAR to target_system would succeed' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this validation tool from sibling migration tools like hmc_migrate_lpar and hmc_migrate_abort_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 the use case: validating migration success before performing it. It also provides practical guidance on the wait parameter and lpar_name_or_uuid format. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as 'use hmc_migrate_lpar to actually migrate'.

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