snap_apply

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-read-only write. The description adds useful context: dry_run lists differences only, and every differing symbol is gated like ads_write. It does not expand on what that gating entails, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before the dry_run and gating notes. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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?

The description covers purpose, preview behavior, and per-symbol safety gating, and an output schema exists for return values. However, with no schema parameter descriptions, the omission of the symbols parameter leaves a substantial gap for correct invocation.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies dry_run ('lists the differences only') and implies that 'name' is the target snapshot, but it never mentions the symbols parameter or its scope-limiting role.

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 ('Write') and resource ('saved snapshot back to the PLC'), with the clarifying use case 'recipe / parameter restore'. It clearly distinguishes this from saving or comparing snapshots, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 restoration use case is implied by '(recipe / parameter restore)' and dry_run is presented as the difference-listing mode. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over snap_compare or ads_write, nor any exclusions.

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