Ensure model is ready

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds one genuinely useful detail beyond them: the evict option unloads other models as a side effect on shared VRAM. It does not explain failure behavior, whether the call blocks until the model is loaded, or how keepAlive/contextLength affect the loaded state, so the added context is real but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that walks the workflow in execution order and ends with the dry-run escape hatch. No filler, and the composite nature is conveyed before any parameter detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all eight parameters are covered by the schema. What remains missing is a note on whether the operation blocks until the model is verified loaded and what happens when the model cannot fit even after eviction.

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 100%, so every one of the eight parameters is already documented, including the evict enum which is richer than the description's 'lru' or 'all' (the schema also documents 'none'). The description only re-explains dryRun and evict; it says nothing about provider, contextLength, kvCacheType, keepAlive, or allowPull, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('ensure') plus the resource ('model') and then enumerates the composite workflow it performs: pull, VRAM fit check, eviction, load, verify. That enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from the atomic siblings (pull_model, fit_check, load_model) it orchestrates.

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?

'Make a model ready in one call' signals this is the composite alternative to chaining the single-step siblings, and 'Use dryRun:true to get the plan without changing anything' gives a concrete safe-preview path. It never explicitly says when to prefer load_model or pull_model directly, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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