lm_load_advanced

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds that the call validates installed flags, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about what loading does to runtime state or what happens on failure.

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?

Two dense sentences with no wasted words and the feature summary front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the parameter surface, but every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with ~12 undocumented option properties, no output schema, and no annotation detail beyond safety hints, the description is too thin. It does not explain the effect of loading, the identifier precondition's interaction with the nullable schema field, or how the options combine.

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% across a large AdvancedLoadOptions object, so the schema documents names but no meaning. The description partially compensates by naming GPU offload, parallelism, TTL, and speculative decoding, which map to real properties, but leaves context_length and the draft token/probability settings unexplained.

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 names a specific action (CLI load) and enumerates the option families it covers (GPU offload, parallelism, TTL, speculative decoding), so an agent can tell it is the advanced variant of loading. However, it never explicitly differentiates from the sibling lm_load, relying on the name alone to convey the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the basic lm_load alternative that a sibling list makes available. The only conditional context is 'Requires identifier', which is a precondition rather than usage routing.

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