plan_group_system_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond them: the operation only validates exposed track states and the actual recall is individual and guarded rather than a multi-track transaction, which tells the agent what this call does and does not do to the Live set.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the non-mutation caveat. No filler, though the phrasing is dense and jargon-heavy enough that a slightly lighter opening would aid comprehension.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does explain the essential character of the result: a per-track validation of exposed state for guarded recall. It does not describe the shape of a failing or partial validation, which is a modest gap for a planning/validation tool, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by constraining the mapping parameter semantically: it must be a one-to-one mapping covering every saved track, aligned to matching Live order and group hierarchy. That adds a validity constraint the schema alone does not express.

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: read a saved group-system capture and check a one-to-one mapping onto existing tracks. It also distinguishes itself from the recall path by stating it does not mutate Live or perform a multi-track transaction. Sibling differentiation is achieved by negation rather than by naming the alternative (e.g. recall_group_system_snapshot), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 description implies usage as a pre-flight validation step (checking a one-to-one mapping, validating each track state for individual guarded recall) and hints at when not to use it (no mutation, no multi-track transaction). However, it never explicitly states when to call this versus recall_group_system_snapshot, nor the prerequisite ordering, so the guidance remains inferential.

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