hmc_remote_restart_lpar

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already indicates the operation is destructive. The description adds context that it is for failed LPARs and another managed system, but does not disclose details such as what happens to the original LPAR, whether it is a long-running job, or if there are prerequisites. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact parameter tip. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 core action and one parameter, but given the existence of an output schema and the context of sibling job-related tools, it omits useful behavioral context such as whether the operation is asynchronous, how to track progress, or any preconditions. It is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for a destructive remote operation.

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%, so the description must document both parameters. It explains lpar_name_or_uuid (accepts PartitionName or UUID, find with hmc_lpars) but provides no explanation for target_system. This is a significant gap for one of two required parameters.

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 states a specific verb 'Remote-restart' and a specific resource 'failed LPAR' with a clear scope 'on another managed system.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmc_power_on_lpar (local power-on) and hmc_migrate_lpar (migration), providing unambiguous purpose.

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 use for failed LPARs that need restart on a different managed system, which is clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, though the 'remote' and 'failed' conditions contextually differentiate it from local power operations.

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