unsave_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden and handles it thoroughly: no deletion, state transition, retention of hash-addressability, visibility changes, idempotent behavior, auto-pruning consequences, and shared-model implications. This is exemplary for a state-changing tool lacking 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 longer than average, but every section contributes: core definition, use-case context, state semantics, caveats, return shape, and parameter explanation. The most important information is front-loaded, with caveats and details logically arranged.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies the return value, side effects, idempotence, lifecycle interactions, and edge cases. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call this tool and what to expect.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args block explains that model_hash is 'the hash of the model whose slot to release,' which adds meaning beyond the bare string type. It could have specified how the hash is obtained (e.g., from create_model or list_models), but the semantic role is clear.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Release a model's saved slot without deleting anything' and explicitly frames it as the inverse of save_model. This clearly distinguishes it from delete_model and other siblings.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: cap management at the 20-saved-models limit, unsave rather than delete when a model no longer earns its slot. It also contrasts with delete_model, states idempotence, and warns when unsaving is risky (shared models, auto-pruned unsaved pool).

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