clear_vram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses optional behavior (unload only models or only memory) but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., impacting running jobs, requiring no pending generations). The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, options. No redundancy or filler. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently provides all necessary context.

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 output schema and a simple action, the description covers when to use, what it does, and parameter options. It could mention that it is a resource management tool with no effect on workflow definitions or job queues, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with clear boolean descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that you can choose to unload only models or only memory, which clarifies the independent usage of the parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 action ('Free GPU VRAM'), the resource ('cached models from ComfyUI'), and the context. It distinguishes the tool from siblings that deal with workflows, jobs, or images, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: between generation runs with different model families or when low on VRAM. It gives concrete examples (SDXL to Flux). It could be improved by mentioning when not to use (e.g., during active generation), but the guidance is solid.

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