recall_track_state_snapshot

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavioral context: restoration happens in 'one guarded native undo step', requires an exact compatible topology, and deliberately does not touch devices, clips, samples, hidden state, automation, or mappings. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and target; the second efficiently enumerates scope and exclusions. 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?

The description plus the rich input schema cover the tool's complexity well, including the dry-run/confirmation workflow via dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken semantics. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating the two-step call sequence or failure behavior on topology mismatch, but the schema largely covers those gaps.

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 input schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description adds conceptual context like 'same exact compatible track topology' that helps explain expectedStateVersion, but it does not add literal parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly names the verb/action pair ('Plan or recall'), the target resource ('captured track-state JSON snapshot'), and the exact restored scope (track name, mixer, sends, routing, exposed top-level-device parameters). It also states a meaningful negative scope, distinguishing it from sibling snapshot/load tools.

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 a plan-then-apply workflow through 'Plan or recall' and gives a topology-compatibility precondition, but it never explicitly names a sibling alternative or states when to prefer this over load_track_state_snapshot or recall_device_parameter_snapshot. The usage boundary is largely left to inference from sibling names and schema fields.

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