hmc_modify_lpar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains partial updates ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), memory units (MiB), dynamic vs static behavior, RMC requirement, and the dedicated flag semantics. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or possible asynchronous job responses, but covers the key operational behaviors.

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 long, starts with a clear purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a complex 13-parameter tool with no annotations, but an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The description covers identifier resolution, units, partial updates, dynamic vs static behavior, and dedicated/shared modes. It does not elaborate on every min/max/desired parameter, relying on naming conventions, which is acceptable given the complexity.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains lpar_name_or_uuid accepts either a name or UUID, memory values are in MiB, dedicated toggles dedicated vs shared CPUs, and omitting dedicated leaves sharing mode unchanged. Other parameters (min_procs, desired_memory, etc.) are not individually explained but their names are self-explanatory in context.

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 the verb and resource: 'Modify an LPAR's name and/or resource assignment (memory / CPU).' It distinguishes from siblings like hmc_dlpar_proc and hmc_dlpar_mem by covering both name and resource changes, not just one resource type.

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?

Provides clear context on when changes are dynamic (running partition, requires RMC) versus applied on next activation, and directs users to hmc_lpars for finding the LPAR identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives like hmc_dlpar_proc/mem, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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