hmc_provision_lpar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly. It states that preconditions are always validated first, explains the dry_run result format, explicitly reports partial-failure statuses ("ok", "error", "skipped"), and clearly warns that no automatic rollback occurs, directing the user to clean up manually with hmc_delete_lpar / hmc_delete_adapter.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by concise behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: no filler, clear bolded emphasis on important caveats, and no repetition of schema-provided parameter definitions.

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 complex 17-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the end-to-end flow, preconditions, dry-run behavior, failure reporting, and rollback expectations. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be spelled out, and the cleanup guidance covers the main follow-up actions.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters in detail. The description adds some context around dry_run=True and its result structure, and it ties the precondition checks to parameters like port_vlan_id and vg_uuid, but it does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema's own 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Provision a new LPAR end-to-end" and enumerates the exact steps (create, add network adapter, add vSCSI adapter, map disk storage, power on). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling single-step tools like hmc_create_lpar, hmc_add_network_adapter, and hmc_power_on_lpar by emphasizing the orchestrated, single-call nature.

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 establishes clear context for when to use the tool: when you want a full LPAR provisioning sequence in a single call, including precondition validation. It also documents the dry_run mode for checking preconditions only. However, it does not explicitly name the individual sibling tools as alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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