hmc_set_sriov_adapter_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying chhwres command via SSH, raw output return, UUID resolution with REST/SSH fallback, and a prominent WARNING about affecting all partitions using virtual functions on the adapter. It stops short of covering permission requirements, reversibility, or failure modes, but the essential behavioral traits are well captured.

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-organized: a clear summary sentence, command detail, UUID resolution, parameter explanations in bullets, and a warning. It is somewhat long but every sentence contributes necessary information—especially the warning and resolution details. No wasted words, though the command snippet could be considered optional given the tool's purpose.

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 configuration-toggle tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, execution method, output format, and risk warning. It also provides integration context (adapter_id source). An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is covered elsewhere. Minor omissions around permissions and whether a reboot is required prevent a perfect score, but it is largely 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 input schema has zero property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: adapter_id is explained as the physical adapter identifier from hmc_list_io_slots, mode maps each enum value to its meaning ('sriov' => enable, 'dedicated' => disable), and system_name_or_uuid explains the CLI name or UUID resolution process. All three parameters are given meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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, unambiguous statement: 'Toggle a physical SR-IOV adapter between SR-IOV and dedicated mode.' It names the exact resource (physical SR-IOV adapter) and the verb 'toggle' with two clear mode values. This distinguishes it from sibling adapter tools like hmc_add_network_adapter or hmc_delete_adapter, which handle different adapter operations.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to switch an SR-IOV adapter between modes, with explicit prerequisites (adapter_id from hmc_list_io_slots) and mode options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as hmc_run_command, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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