vm_snapshot_rollback

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing that the action is IRREVERSIBLE, that there is no undo token, that the discarded state cannot be recovered, that user confirmation is required, and that dry_run provides a preview. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the operation type and the irreversibility warning before anything else, then uses a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the safety-critical facts (irreversibility, no recovery, confirmation, dry_run) plus all parameter meanings, so nothing essential 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does document all five parameters, including the non-obvious ones ('node: omit to auto-locate the VM', 'target: Proxmox target name from config'). It lacks format/enum detail but adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 and resource ('Roll a VM back to a snapshot') with a [WRITE] tag, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like vm_snapshot_create, vm_snapshot_delete, and backup_restore. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'Confirm with the user' and to 'Pass dry_run=True to preview', and routes to vm_list_snapshots for obtaining snapshot names. It does not, however, compare against alternatives such as backup_restore, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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