hmc_remove_ldap_config

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

Annotations mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds that the operation performs an immediate delete with no job to poll, plus it returns a confirmation string. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation, clarifying the sync nature of the operation and its return type.

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-organized, front-loads the core action, and uses a clear list for the valid resource values. Every sentence adds value (Ansible equivalence, pre-inspection advice, return behavior) with no redundant text.

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?

With only one parameter and a simple output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, all possible resource choices, the destructive and immediate nature, the return behavior, and a recommended prerequisite step. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema provides no description for the only parameter 'resource', but the description fully compensates by listing all valid values and their meanings. This gives complete semantic coverage that the schema lacks, directly enabling correct invocation.

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 begins with a specific verb–resource pair ('Remove a component of the HMC LDAP server configuration') and enumerates each removable component, making the tool's scope unmistakable. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like hmc_get_ldap_config and hmc_configure_ldap by focusing solely on removal.

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 gives actionable advice to inspect the current state via hmc_get_ldap_config before calling, which clarifies a key workflow step. It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative like hmc_configure_ldap, but the removal vs. configure distinction is implied by the wording and examples.

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