lira_restore_backup

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds substantial context: the current file is backed up first, the operation is reversible, an open model is closed and reopened, it must have no unsaved changes unless discard_changes is true, and analysis results become stale against the replaced version. That is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its default, then the reversibility, then the preconditions, then the downstream consequence. No filler; every sentence conveys a distinct operational fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive preconditions are thoroughly covered. The only gap is that the model argument's role and default are left implicit, which matters slightly given zero schema description coverage.

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 carry parameter meaning; it explains backup (path from lira_list_backups, defaults to newest) and discard_changes (permits an unsaved model to be discarded). The model parameter is only implied by 'an open model', so one of three parameters remains loosely specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: puts a backup file back in place of the model file, with the default (newest) named. It also names the sibling lira_list_backups as the source of the path, so an agent can distinguish this from lira_open_model, lira_save_model or lira_list_backups without opening a 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?

Gives clear context: obtain the path from lira_list_backups, default to the newest backup, and even explains the undo case (restoring the newest backup again reverses the restore). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus lira_open_model or lira_import_text_model, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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