hmc_restore_vios

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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds critical context: it explicitly states that restoring overwrites the current VIOS configuration and advises confirming inputs. It also discloses that the command runs via SSH and returns raw HMC CLI output, going well beyond the annotation's minimal signal.

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: a purpose statement, the underlying command, parameter explanations, a warning, and return behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 destructive restore operation, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, command execution, parameter sourcing, destructive warning, and return type. Even though an output schema exists, the description still notes raw CLI output. There are no significant gaps given the tool's 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters and their provenance: vios_uuid from hmc_vios and backup_name from hmc_list_vios_backups. It also includes the exact CLI command template, making parameter semantics clear and actionable.

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 verb 'Restore' and the resource 'VIOS from a named backup via the HMC CLI', making the purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like hmc_backup_vios and hmc_list_vios_backups by explicitly framing the operation as a restore.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool, specifying that vios_uuid must come from hmc_vios and backup_name from hmc_list_vios_backups. It also warns about overwriting configuration, implying use is appropriate only when restore is intended. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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