lira_write_table

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that validation is all-or-nothing ('on any error nothing changes'), that errors come back with 0-based row/column positions, and that the model file is backed up before its first change. Notable gaps remain around permissions and what exactly changes in the model beyond 'add objects (e.g. nodes)'.

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?

The write action and the numbers semantics lead, followed by failure behavior and backup. Four tight sentences with no filler, though the awkward mid-sentence line breaks slightly hamper scanning.

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 description covers the mutation risks an agent most needs (atomicity, backups, error indexing). Missing only the role of the 'model' parameter and the expected row/column shape.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the rows/numbers interaction well, but the optional 'model' parameter is never mentioned, and the column layout expected in each row array is left unstated, so compensation is only partial.

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: 'Write rows into an input table and apply them to the model.' This clearly distinguishes it from lira_read_table and from the object-specific setters (lira_add_nodes, lira_set_loads), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 two modes (replace whole table vs replace only numbered objects) effectively describe when each form of the call is appropriate. However, there is no explicit routing guidance against alternatives like lira_add_nodes or lira_set_loads, so the agent must infer which tool applies.

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