lira_set_loads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the text-format rebuild, table copying, verification, backup-then-overwrite ordering, all-or-nothing failure, refusal for models with differing combination norms, and the residual unverifiable-data risk requiring manual LIRA check. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the purpose and then the payload contract before the long behavioral caveats, and nearly every clause adds information. The prose is somewhat dense and the final warning sentence is a bit sprawling, but there is no filler.

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 safety/atomicity story is fully covered. What remains thin is the 'model' parameter (default-null resolution) and whether the model must be open or saved beforehand — minor gaps for an otherwise complete definition.

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 compensate: it documents the 'loads' item shape ({case, target, type, direction, values}) and the semantics of 'load_cases' (omit to replace all loads). The 'model' parameter is left entirely unexplained, which is the one 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?

The first clause states a specific verb and resource ('Replace loads of a saved model') plus scope ('of load_cases only, or all loads when omitted'), which lets an agent distinguish it from lira_read_loads and lira_fragment_loads without opening a schema. The second line additionally pins down the data shape expected.

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 implies when to use the tool via the load_cases selection semantics and references lira_read_loads as the source of the 'loads' payload, which is a useful workflow cue. But it never names an alternative (e.g. lira_fragment_loads) or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the refusal case, so guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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