unload_loras

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('all LoRA weights'), the purpose (reset to base style), a performance characteristic (faster than reload), and the return payload (success, unloaded_count, message). It could further elaborate on edge cases (e.g., behavior when no LoRA is loaded), but otherwise provides solid behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise, using only three short paragraphs. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by use-case justification and a brief return specification. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter tool, and the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, performance advantage, and return values. The presence of an output schema handles the return structure, so the description's summary is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description adds no conflicting info. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously, so no additional parameter clarification is needed.

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 clearly states the tool action with a specific verb ('Unload') and resource ('all LoRA weights from the current pipeline'). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from siblings like load_checkpoint and generate_image by focusing on removing LoRA weights.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use it ('reset to base checkpoint style') and why it's preferable to an alternative ('faster than reloading the checkpoint'). Though it doesn't name the specific sibling tool, the comparison to reloading is concrete and actionable, giving strong contextual guidance.

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