lora_unload

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the concrete consequence ('traffic on it starts failing'), which is exactly the impact an agent needs before invoking a destructive op, and it offers a preview escape hatch via dry_run. It stops short of permissions, reversibility, or recovery guidance.

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?

Front-loads the [WRITE][risk=high] severity marker, then the impact, then the safe preview path, then a compact args block. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers severity, impact, preview path, and all parameter semantics; annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 carries the full burden — and it documents all three parameters: lora_name with a source cross-reference (model_list), dry_run's preview behavior, and target's default-when-omitted behavior. Only minor ambiguity remains (e.g., whether lora_name must exist beforehand).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Hot-unload a LoRA adapter') and immediately qualifies the scope ('Hot') plus the observable effect on traffic. An agent can distinguish it from the lora_load sibling on name semantics alone.

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?

Gives a usable hook ('traffic on it starts failing') and an explicit safe path ('Pass dry_run=True to preview'), which is real usage guidance. However, it never contrasts with alternatives such as lora_load, model_undeploy, or replica_restart, and states no when-not conditions.

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