hmc_vios_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that a job is submitted asynchronously, that hmc_get_job should be polled, and that wait=True blocks to terminal state. It also clarifies the semantic difference between update and upgrade. It does not mention potential system disruption or permission requirements, but the asynchronous nature and polling expectation are useful behavioral disclosures.

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 succinct and well-structured with line breaks separating the main purpose, parameter clarifications, and wait behavior. Every sentence adds value; no filler 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested repository object, async job submission) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key workflow: how to identify the VIOS, choose update vs upgrade, describe the repository, submit the job, and optionally wait. It references sibling tools for lookup and polling. It falls short only by omitting any prerequisite checks or potential side effects, but the essential context is present.

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 description coverage is only 17% (only the repository object has an inline description). The tool description compensates by explaining vios_name_or_uuid (PartitionName or UUID, find via hmc_vios), kind ('update' vs 'upgrade'), and repository (same format as hmc_hmc_update). It also explains wait=True. However, poll_interval and timeout_seconds are not elaborated beyond their defaults, though their names are self-explanatory.

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?

Description clearly states 'Submit a VIOS software update or upgrade job' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes between 'kind=update' (PTF fixes) and 'kind=upgrade' (full version upgrade), and the name itself contrasts with sibling tools like hmc_hmc_update and hmc_install_vios. No ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear context: references hmc_vios to find the vios_name_or_uuid, hmc_get_job for polling status, and hmc_hmc_update for the repository format. It explains wait=True behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or directly compare with alternatives, stopping short of a perfect score.

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