hmc_power_off_vios

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

The destructiveHint annotation is true, and the description adds critical behavior by stating that 'immediate skips graceful shutdown,' warning about abrupt termination risks. It also discloses that wait=True blocks until a terminal state, providing insight into job execution behavior.

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 highly concise, with two short paragraphs that front-load the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds necessary information—behavior, identifiers, and wait behavior—without any filler.

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?

For a destructive tool with 5 parameters, the description covers key aspects: graceful vs immediate shutdown, identifier format, and wait behavior. It leaves poll_interval and timeout_seconds unexplained, but those are self-explanatory from their names, and the output schema handles return values. This is adequate for an experienced HMC user.

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 description explicitly defines vios_name_or_uuid as accepting either a PartitionName or a UUID, which adds clarity beyond the schema's plain string type. It also explains wait and immediate semantics, though poll_interval and timeout_seconds are left to inference. This is helpful given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Power off a VIOS' with a specific verb and resource, and also clarifies the operation type as a 'PowerOff job'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hmc_power_off_lpar and hmc_power_off_system by explicitly targeting VIOS.

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 usage context by naming the resource VIOS, which naturally separates it from LPAR and system power-off tools. It explains the wait parameter's purpose, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.

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