hmc_restore_lpar_profiles

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

The description adds significant context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it explicitly warns that restoring overwrites the current LPAR profile configuration, clarifies that file_path is on the HMC filesystem, and details the UUID-to-name resolution fallback mechanism. This fully discloses the destructive impact and important runtime 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details, an important file path note, and a destructive warning. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: the exact command executed, the raw output, the file path location, UUID resolution, and the destructive overwrite warning. With an output schema and destructiveHint annotation already present, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds extra value by clarifying that file_path must already exist on the HMC host and that system_name_or_uuid can be a UUID or CLI name with a documented resolution process, exceeding what the schema alone provides.

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 the tool restores LPAR profiles from a backup file via the HMC CLI, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like backup and sync by explicitly naming the restore operation and the underlying command.

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 the tool is for restoring profiles from backups and emphasizes the prerequisite that the file must already exist on the HMC filesystem. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear and unambiguous.

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