hmc_set_lpar_description

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool executes a chsyscfg command over SSH, that it modifies LPAR configuration, and warns the user to confirm parameters. It also details the UUID-to-name resolution fallback behavior, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a command example, REST limitation, GUI context, UUID resolution, and a warning. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the operation, the exact command executed, the fallback behavior, and a safety warning. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It explains that system_name_or_uuid and lpar_name_or_uuid may be either CLI names or UUIDs and that UUIDs are resolved. It also clarifies the purpose of the description field. While it does not provide format constraints, it adds meaningful semantics for all three 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the description field of an LPAR via the HMC CLI.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_lpar_description and modify_lpar by stating exactly what it changes.

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?

It provides contextual guidance, notably that this field is not settable via the REST API, implying when to use this tool over other APIs. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternative tool name, but the context is clear enough.

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