hmc_set_lpar_msp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the operation modifies LPAR configuration, states it runs via SSH, and discloses the UUID resolution fallback from REST to SSH. This is more transparent than typical setter tools, though it doesn't cover permissions or reversibility.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, the command invocation, a brief note on UUID resolution, and a warning. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how it works (SSH command), how parameters are resolved, and that it mutates configuration. It could mention prerequisites or failure cases, but for a focused setter tool, this is adequate.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by showing the underlying CLI command with placeholders: "name=<lpar_name>,msp=<0|1>". This maps the three schema parameters (system_name_or_uuid, lpar_name_or_uuid, enabled) to the command's system name, lpar name, and msp flag respectively. It also clarifies that UUIDs are resolved to CLI names, which explains parameter flexibility.

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 MSP (Migratable Service Partition) flag of an LPAR via the HMC CLI." This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling getter hmc_get_lpar_msp and other set-type tools. It also mentions the exact HMC command, reinforcing the tool's 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 provides clear context that this tool is for setting the MSP flag, and the warning to confirm parameters before calling offers practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks the explicit exclusions of a top score.

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