hmc_power_on_lpar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses that the tool modifies real state, warns to confirm the target, explains the already_running short-circuit, and describes force and wait behavior. It doesn't cover all edge cases (e.g., error responses), but the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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 moderately long but each sentence adds value: main action, parameter guidance, safety warning, special-case behavior, and wait option. It is front-loaded with the action and structured logically, though slightly verbose in the middle.

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 description covers the input essentials, the output (returns the job, already_running dict), and important warnings. It doesn't mention poll_interval or error handling, but the output schema and sibling context help fill gaps. Overall adequate for a mutation tool of this 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 coverage is 0%, but the description directly explains the critical parameter lpar_name_or_uuid (accepts name or UUID) and describes force and wait semantics. It also mentions timeout_seconds indirectly via wait. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Submit a PowerOn job for a logical partition.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like power_off_lpar or power_on_system, and the mention of lpar_name_or_uuid clarifies the target.

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 usage context: confirm target with hmc_lpars, check status with hmc_get_job, and warnings about changing real state. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use this vs. power_on_system), but the context is clear enough.

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