hmc_set_lpar_proc_compat

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 this modifies the LPAR configuration on the HMC, shows the exact HMC command executed via SSH, and explains the UUID resolution fallback. This is significant transparency for a mutation tool, though it does not mention permission requirements, rollback, or effect timing.

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-line purpose, the exact command, the UUID resolution note, and a warning. Every sentence adds value and the warning is appropriately placed for a mutating operation. No fluff or redundancy.

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, the description covers the critical operational aspects: what it does, how it executes (SSH + REST fallback), and the risk of modifying config. It lacks guidance on valid mode values and prerequisites (e.g., LPAR state), but given the existence of sibling tools like hmc_get_proc_compat_modes and an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does explain that system_name_or_uuid and lpar_name_or_uuid can be CLI names or UUIDs and that UUIDs are resolved to names. However, it does not clarify valid values for 'mode', which is a critical gap. The connection to the chsyscfg command structure gives some parameter mapping, but incomplete.

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 processor compatibility mode of an LPAR.' This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like hmc_get_lpar_proc_compat (read operation) and other setters (e.g., hmc_set_lpar_msp, hmc_set_lpar_description).

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 usage context is implied by the tool name and first sentence, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like hmc_modify_lpar or when not to use it. The description does mention the underlying command and UUID resolution, which gives some operational context, but stops short of clarifying exclusions or prerequisites.

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