unload_lms_model

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and idempotent, and the description reinforces and expands on both: it discards a resident model, refuses while an `ask_lms` call is in flight, waits for confirmation, and reports bytes freed plus what remains resident. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: operator warning first, then prerequisite, then in-flight refusal and result reporting, then idempotence. It is front-loaded with the most critical safety information and contains 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, refusal behavior, return information (bytes freed and resident models), and idempotence. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 100%, and the schema already explains that `model` is a loaded model key with an example and a pointer to `list_lms_models`. The top-level description does not add substantially new parameter semantics, but it does not need to given full schema coverage.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('unload') and resource ('model from the operator's LM Studio server') with a clear goal ('free memory'). No sibling tool performs unloading, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to select.

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 explicitly says when not to call it: 'never call this without an explicit request or confirmation from the user' because it discards a resident model. It also names the prerequisite (`list_lms_models`), the blocked `ask_lms` signal (`unload_offer`), and the in-flight refusal condition.

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