recall_device_chain_snapshot

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries some burden. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a guarded operation ('one guarded Live undo step'), it is a plan-or-execute two-phase operation, and it explicitly discloses limitations ('cannot restore hidden plugin state'). It does not detail what happens to existing device parameters not in the snapshot, but the schema's 'complete ordered exposed parameter layout' implies full replacement.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the guarded undo behavior. The second sentence adds critical exclusions and limitations. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a complex tool with 6 parameters and nested objects, the description plus schema covers the essential context: what it does, what it doesn't do, the two-phase plan/confirm flow, and the guarded undo behavior. It doesn't explain return values, but there is no output schema and the dryRun/confirmationToken parameters imply the return contract. It could mention that the planHash and confirmationToken must come from the matching dry run, but the schema already states this.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the dryRun/confirmationToken two-phase flow, which is not fully clear from the schema alone. It also clarifies that expectedStateVersion is the version observed 'immediately before planning'. The snapshot parameter's nested structure is well-documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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 description states a specific verb ('Plan or recall'), a precise resource ('exposed parameters and names onto the same exact compatible ordered device topology'), and a key differentiator ('in one guarded Live undo step'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from related operations by stating what it does not do ('Does not create, delete, or load devices and cannot restore hidden plugin state'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like recall_track_state_snapshot, recall_device_parameter_snapshot, and move_device.

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 clearly implies the two-phase usage pattern: first call with dryRun to plan, then call with confirmationToken to execute. It also states exclusions ('Does not create, delete, or load devices') which helps an agent avoid using this tool for those purposes. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use X instead when...'.

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