sync-schema-descriptions

name

sync-schema-descriptions

description

Sources Terraform schema descriptions from the pinned oxide.go SDK's Go doc comments, which already mirror the OpenAPI spec. Adapts the text to the TF surface (translating reshaped attribute names, clarifying NameOrId inputs, trimming API-internal paragraphs, and reconciling any divergence between provider and API default behavior) so the descriptions stay accurate and aligned with the version of the SDK the provider actually calls into.

Sync Schema Descriptions

Overview

Terraform schema Description / MarkdownDescription strings are hand-written and drift from the canonical descriptions in the OpenAPI spec. The oxide.go SDK, pinned via go.mod, has the same descriptions baked into Go doc comments on each field. This skill walks through sourcing the right description, adapting it, and applying the change.

Not every TF attribute maps 1:1 to a single SDK field (e.g. TF's boot_disk_id corresponds to the SDK's richer boot_disk), so blind copying is wrong. The skill codifies the adaptation process rather than automating it blindly.

Workflow

1. Resolve the SDK source

go list -m -f '{{.Dir}}' github.com/oxidecomputer/oxide.go

Descriptions live in <dir>/oxide/types.go. Do not use a local checkout of the SDK, which might not match the pinned version.

2. Identify scope

The user will usually ask about one attribute (e.g. instance.ssh_public_keys), a whole resource, or all resources. For each in-scope attribute, work through steps 3–8.

3. Locate the TF attribute

In internal/provider/<resource>/resource.go (or data_source.go), find the schema block and note the current Description / MarkdownDescription. Find the TF model struct field via its tfsdk:"<attr_name>" tag.

Do not touch schema-version-compat files (resource_v0.go, resource_v1.go, …). They represent frozen prior schemas kept for state upgrades; descriptions there are not rendered to current docs, so the files should stay as they were when that version shipped.

4. Find the matching SDK field

Input attributes (set in Create/Update): grep the Create method for the model field. You'll see a line like params.Body.SshPublicKeys = .... The SDK struct is the type of params.Body (e.g. oxide.InstanceCreate); the SDK field is the LHS accessor.

Computed/output attributes (populated in Read): grep the Read method for how state.<Field> is set from the API response — e.g. state.TimeCreated = types.StringValue(resp.TimeCreated.String()). The SDK struct is the response type (e.g. oxide.Instance), the field is the resp.<X> accessor.

If the TF attribute has no clean 1:1 SDK counterpart (flattened, split, or composed from multiple API fields), stop and surface this to the user — it needs a hand-written description, not an adaptation.

5. Read the SDK doc comment

Open <sdk_dir>/oxide/types.go, find type <StructName> struct, and read the Go doc comment on the field. Comments are hard-wrapped; reflow them into a single logical description.

Also note the field's Go type — it drives adaptation rule (b) below.

6. Adapt

The default is verbatim. Copy the SDK doc comment's prose into the TF description word-for-word. Do not insert em dashes, merge sentences, paraphrase verbs, or restructure for flow. The value of sourcing from the SDK is fidelity to a single maintained source of truth; editorial drift reintroduces exactly the hand-written divergence the skill is meant to eliminate.

Only deviate when one of the rules below applies, and only to the extent the rule requires. If you aren't sure whether a change is required, keep the source wording and ask the operator.

Do not invent text from sibling attributes. If the SDK has no usable description for a given TF attribute (e.g. the SDK doc comment is a tautology like "X is a variant of Y", or the corresponding SDK type/field is internal wrapping with no prose), the skill's job is done — the attribute needs a hand-written description, which is outside this skill's scope. Surface the gap to the operator. Never copy text from a TF sibling (v4 → v6, ephemeral → floating, etc.) and pass it off as adapted; it is still hand-written, just plagiarized.

a. Translate field-name references. If the comment references an API field name that differs in TF (e.g. "set the boot_disk attribute"), rewrite it to the TF name (boot_disk_id). Same for any other cross-referenced field.

b. NameOrId phrasing. The API accepts both names and IDs for NameOrId / []NameOrId inputs. The right phrasing depends on what the TF attribute represents:

• If the attribute is the resource's own name (typically a required top-level attribute on a resource or data source), it stores the name. Describe as "Name of …".
• If the attribute is a reference to another resource (e.g. vpc_id, disk_attachments, boot_disk_id), the provider writes the resolved ID back into state on Read, so a user who supplies a name will see a perpetual diff (or recreate) on the next plan. Until the provider preserves the user-supplied form, keep descriptions honest: say "ID of …" / "IDs of …" regardless of whether the SDK field type is string or NameOrId. If the source SDK comment says "name or ID", rewrite to "ID".

c. Trim non-user-facing paragraphs. Drop:

• internal API behavior the TF user can't observe
• roadmap/hedging language ("currently, …", "in the future, …")
• information already encoded by the TF schema (e.g. defaults — TF renders those separately)

Keep paragraphs describing user-visible behavior: accepted value forms, interactions with other attributes. Paragraphs about omission/defaults need verification first — see rule (e).

d. Preserve TF-specific additions. If the current TF description contains information that isn't in the SDK (e.g. cross-refs to other TF attrs, validator behavior), keep it — it usually reflects provider logic that doesn't exist at the API level.

e. Provider defaults may diverge from API defaults. Any SDK phrase like "if not provided, …", "if null, …", or "defaults to …" describes what the API does when the field is absent from the request — but the provider may not actually omit the field. Helpers like shared.NewNameOrIdList return []T{} (never nil), and whether that serializes as [] or gets dropped depends on the SDK struct's JSON tag (omitempty / omitzero vs. bare). An empty list reaching the API is semantically different from an absent field.

If the SDK description includes a default-behavior clause, decide how to handle it:

• Inspect the code. Trace the provider's Create/Update path for the field and confirm whether a null TF value produces an omitted request field or a zero-value one. If the provider's behavior matches the SDK clause, keep it; if it doesn't, rewrite to describe what the provider actually does.
• Ask the operator. If the behavior isn't clear from the code, or if the mismatch looks like a provider bug worth fixing separately, surface it.
• Omit the clause. When in doubt, drop the default-behavior sentence entirely rather than risk a misleading description.

f. Add undocumented TF-specific constraints. Rule (d) is about keeping what's already in the current description; this rule is about adding what's missing. If the schema has validators or plan modifiers whose effect isn't mentioned in the current description, fold a short clause in — the framework's auto-generated docs don't surface these. Examples:

• stringvalidator.LengthBetween(1, 63) → "Must be 1–63 characters."
• stringvalidator.RegexMatches(pattern, "…") → reuse the validator's message, or describe the pattern.
• stringvalidator.OneOf("a", "b", "c") → "Must be one of a, b, c."

Skip constraints the framework already renders (Required / Optional / Computed flags, Default values — same reasoning as rule (c)).

7. Apply, then hand off for review

Apply all proposed changes with Edit to the current resource.go / data_source.go only (never resource_v*.go). Run make fmt to regenerate docs/resources/*.md and docs/data-sources/*.md, then make lint to verify.

Report what was changed in a short summary and tell the operator to review via git diff. The diff is a better review surface for multi-attribute text changes than an in-chat bulleted list.

8. Show the provenance table

At the end of the pass, emit a table with one row per touched attribute:

| Attribute | SDK source (field, verbatim) | Provider description (as applied) |

For each row:

• SDK source: the type + field (e.g. InstanceCreate.Memory) and the doc-comment prose as it appears in oxide/types.go, unedited. For rule (f) additions, use "(none — rule f)" and name the validator.
• Provider description: the final string now in the schema, so the operator can see the adaptation deltas inline without chasing through git diff and the SDK side-by-side.

One row per attribute updated — skip attributes left untouched.

Exceptions — pause and surface to the operator before editing rather than after:

• Step 4 found no clean 1:1 SDK counterpart (reshaped, split, or composed attribute) — the description needs to be hand-written, not adapted.
• Rule (e) flagged a behavior-claim mismatch that implies a provider fix is needed rather than a description change. Describe the mismatch and ask whether to narrow the description to match current provider behavior or open a separate issue to fix the provider first.

Notes

• The SDK pins to a specific Omicron release; the descriptions on disk match the API the provider actually calls at runtime. There is no need to fetch the OpenAPI spec directly.
• When go.mod bumps oxide.go, upstream descriptions may change. Re-running this skill after an SDK bump is a reasonable drift-detection pass.