hmc_modify_system

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

The description discloses the key partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you pass are changed; omitted fields are left as-is') and explains parameter effects. With no annotations, it carries the disclosure burden but notably omits operational traits like whether changes require a reboot, are asynchronous (job), or need specific permissions.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, a clear partial-update note, then a bullet-like parameter list with no fluff. Every sentence adds value and the length is appropriate for 7 parameters.

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?

While the parameter semantics are thorough, the description lacks operational context: it doesn't mention potential job creation, whether changes are pending or applied immediately, prerequisites (e.g., system state), or error scenarios. The output schema exists, but it doesn't cover this operational behavior, leaving gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains every parameter in detail, including allowed values and units (e.g., 'pend_mem_region_size: pending memory region size (MiB)', 'power_off_policy: 1 powers the system off...'). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Modify a managed system's configuration' with a specific verb and resource, and the listed parameters (new_name, power_off_policy, etc.) confirm system-level scope. This distinguishes it from sibling modify tools like hmc_modify_lpar or hmc_modify_user.

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 makes clear that this tool is for modifying system-level configuration, and the parameter list reinforces that context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using hmc_power_on_system for power control, so it stops short of full guidance.

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