Unload Model

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 implies a state-changing operation (unloading) but does not disclose potential side effects like freeing memory, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it affects other instances. It also doesn't mention errors when instance_id is not loaded. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with zero fluff, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation with one parameter.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks critical context such as how to find instance_id (likely from list_models or get_loaded_model), what to expect in response, and error handling. Given the tool's low complexity, a slightly richer description would be sufficient, but the current one leaves gaps.

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 only one parameter (instance_id) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions instance_id but does not explain what an instance_id is or how to obtain it. At 0% coverage, the description should compensate, and it only barely does by mentioning 'loaded model instance' – leaving the agent uncertain about the ID format.

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 clearly states the action (unload a model) and the target resource (a loaded model instance by instance_id) from the active profile's LM Studio endpoint. It distinguishes itself from load_model and get_loaded_model by specifying unload semantics, but it could be more explicit about the distinction from 'get_loaded_model' which is about querying, not modifying.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like load_model or get_loaded_model. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., model must be loaded, instance_id must be valid) or consequences. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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