reserve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that pid is advisory, that reservations expire by TTL so crashed sessions never leave a stuck reservation, and the COOPERATIVE note explains both that it gates vram-mcp's own warm() and that it cannot intercept a direct Ollama /api/generate call from another process. This is rich, honest 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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs. The first line states the core purpose; the second gives the use case; the third gives essential limitation context. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or restatement of the schema.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, TTL behavior, pid semantics, and cooperative limits. The main gap is the return value — what the reservation call produces (likely an ID needed by the renew/release siblings) is never stated, which an agent would want to know to chain calls 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 explains gb (VRAM amount), pid (advisory), and ttl_seconds (expiry semantics). Owner and purpose are not explicitly described but are self-evident by name. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema for three of the five parameters.

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 specific verb+resource pair — 'Reserve gb GB of VRAM' — and immediately clarifies scope with 'a claim on capacity, not on a named model.' This distinguishes it from the sibling claim tool, which presumably targets a named model. An agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it — 'for non-Ollama GPU work (a training run, a diffusion job)' — so other sessions can see VRAM is spoken for. It doesn't name the alternative tool explicitly (claim) but implies it via 'not on a named model,' which is a clear enough exclusion for a competent agent.

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