lm_model_config

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates but is not destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — that 'load requires new instance ID' — implying a side effect of creating a new instance. However, it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what happens to running instances, so it adds only partial context beyond the 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?

Two dense, semicolon-separated clauses with no filler; the config scope is front-loaded ahead of the action routing. It is appropriately sized for a compact multi-action tool, though the terse phrasing borders on cryptic.

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?

With no output schema and a 0%-coverage schema containing a free-form config object, the description carries substantial burden. It covers action semantics and the instance_id requirement but leaves the config object's shape and the model parameter unaddressed, so an agent still has to inspect the schema to call it correctly.

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 does explain the three enum values of the required 'action' parameter and mentions that 'load' needs an instance_id, and it names config areas (GPU, KV quantization, mmap, RoPE, seed) that map to the opaque config object. But 'model' and the internal structure of the free-form config object remain undocumented, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 identifies the resource (official SDK advanced load config) and enumerates the config dimensions it governs (GPU, KV quantization, mmap, RoPE, seed), and it names the three actions (schema, inspect, load). It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling lm_load_advanced by emphasizing the SDK config surface, though the boundary between the two is not fully drawn.

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 second sentence routes between the tool's own actions: 'schema first; inspect compares SDK and REST; load requires new instance ID.' That is explicit when-to-use guidance at the action level. It does not, however, compare against sibling tools like lm_load or lm_load_advanced, so it falls short of full alternatives coverage.

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