unload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses refusal conditions, the force override, the windowed/busy-signal lag, and the audit-log side effect of 'by.' It leaves some blind spots such as auth requirements, exact return behavior, and what happens if the model is not loaded, but the core mutating behavior is 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by refusal/override semantics and the audit side effect. Every clause earns its place.

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, no output schema, and a 3-parameter schema, the description covers the action, key edge cases, and side effects well. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain what happens for an already-unloaded model, does not describe return/error values, and does not route between closely related siblings.

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 force as an override for refusals and by as the audit-log actor; model is implicitly clear as the model being evicted, though its allowed format or identifier is not explicitly described. This is strong compensation for an uncovered schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Evict a single model from VRAM now,' and maps it to Ollama's keep_alive=0, making the action concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like release or ensure_free, though 'single model from VRAM' narrows the scope considerably.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: when an immediate, single-model VRAM eviction is needed. It also gives an implicit when-not by describing refusal on active claims or busy signals and the force override, but it never names alternative tools or explicitly says 'use X instead.'

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