qemu_snapshot_load

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description supplies a genuinely non-obvious precondition, that the snapshot must be on the same qcow2 disk, which is not encoded anywhere in the schema and is the main reason a load would fail. It does not say what happens to current in-memory/disk state, though destructiveHint partially covers that.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite. Nothing redundant; every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the destructive/reversible profile is in annotations. However, with two required, fully undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing about argument semantics for a destructive operation, which is a substantial omission for a restore tool.

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 0% and both parameters (name, tag) are bare strings with no titles beyond the field names. The description adds no meaning at all about what 'name' identifies versus what 'tag' identifies, or whether tag refers to the snapshot tag created by qemu_snapshot_save. This is the definition's largest gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Restore a VM to a snapshot') and names the complementary sibling qemu_snapshot_save, which distinguishes it from snapshot_save/delete/list. It stops short of explaining the difference from other state-changing siblings like qemu_boot or qemu_resume.

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?

It implies the tool is used after qemu_snapshot_save and pairs with it, which is useful sequencing context. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., paused/running VM, VM already in target state) or point to alternatives such as qemu_snapshot_list for discovering valid names.

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