lora_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. The '[WRITE][risk=medium]' tag and 'hot-load' phrase indicate a write operation with medium risk and live loading, but it does not detail failure behavior, permissions, or effects on existing adapters.

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 header line with risk tag, blank line, then parameter documentation. Every sentence provides information without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and parameters adequately. However, it does not mention the outcome (e.g., success/error) or side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent considering invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter: lora_name (adapter name), lora_path (local path or HF repo id), target (inference target, omit for default). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though format specifics and examples are missing.

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 'Hot-load a LoRA adapter onto the running engine.' Using a specific verb ('load') and resource ('LoRA adapter'), it distinguishes from the sibling 'lora_unload', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context with 'hot-load' and 'onto the running engine', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lora_unload', nor does it provide conditions or exclusions.

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