recall_rack_macro_variation

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call binds the exact rack and current parameter state, and Live only exposes observed values after recall — the saved contents cannot be previewed beforehand. That is a real operational caveat an agent 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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is dense but every clause carries real information about state binding and the lack of pre-recall visibility.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile via annotations, the plan/apply flow via the schema, and the key caveat that saved variation contents are not visible until after recall. Only explicit routing to sibling variation tools 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 coverage is 86%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the 'zero-based index' interpretation for variationIndex and clarifies the planning/recall flow that the dryRun/confirmationToken/planHash parameters implement.

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') and resource ('rack macro variation'), plus the index convention (zero-based). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the store/delete sibling tools, though it never names them outright.

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 plan-vs-recall split is implied by 'Plan or recall' and elaborated in the schema's dryRun parameter, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives such as store_rack_macro_variation or delete_rack_macro_variation for other variation operations.

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