recall_group_system_snapshot

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it names the scope of restoration (mixer, routing, device and rack state), the safety mechanism (one guarded native callback plus a Live undo step), the failure path (rollback attempted across every changed track), and explicit exclusions (no track/device/clip recreation, no hidden plugin state). This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a mutating tool needs.

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 dense sentences with the action and target front-loaded and the exclusions last, so the most important information arrives first. Slightly technical/packed phrasing but nothing is wasted or repetitive.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining outcome and failure behavior, and it does: it states what is restored, that rollback is attempted on failure, and what is deliberately not touched. The main omission is any mention of the dry-run/confirm two-step flow, which the schema covers but the description would ideally reinforce.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters including dryRun/confirmationToken flow, planHash, and mapping entries. The description only reinforces the 'one-to-one mapped' requirement for mapping and adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (plan or apply) and resource (saved group-system capture) onto a precisely bounded target (one-to-one mapped compatible existing Group Track and descendants). It also rules out a class of behavior ('Does not recreate tracks/devices/clips'), which helps separate it from creation tools. However, it never names its closest siblings (plan_group_system_recall, load_group_system_snapshot, recall_track_state_snapshot), so the agent must infer which recall variant to pick.

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?

Preconditions are implied rather than stated: the target must already exist, be a compatible Group Track, and be fully one-to-one mapped. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing against plan_group_system_recall or load_group_system_snapshot, which is the main gap for a snapshot-recall family with several near-identical names.

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