lira_save_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious side effect: the first overwrite in a session triggers a backup copy into a sibling folder, and the result names the copy. It does not discuss permissions, write failures, or whether subsequent overwrites in the same session also back up.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the argument semantics and the backup caveat. Inline quoting and stray line breaks make it slightly ragged but nothing is wasted.

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 not be described, and the description still usefully notes the result names the backup copy. What remains missing is the format of the 'model' parameter, path resolution rules, and overwrite behavior past the first save in a session.

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% — the schema only has titles and defaults — so the description must compensate, and it does: 'model' is explained as defaulting to the active model and 'save_as' as a new .lir path. The word 'model' itself is ambiguous (name, id, or path), which is the main remaining gap.

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 — save a model, defaulting to the active one — and separates the plain save from the save-as behavior via the save_as argument. It is clear enough to distinguish from lira_create_model and lira_open_model, though those siblings are not named.

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 default-to-active-model behavior and the save_as override are spelled out, which implies when to pass each argument, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must a model be open) or on when to use this versus lira_export_text or lira_create_model.

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