Guest Snapshots

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description builds on that by noting the requirement for elevated permissions. It also enumerates actions, which clarifies that list is read-only while rollback/delete are mutating, adding value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, then lists actions, scope, and permission requirements. No filler or redundancy; every element contributes to understanding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, actions, scope, and permission needs. It does not specify per-action parameter requirements (e.g., snapname is needed for create/rollback/delete but not list), but the schema and annotations handle most of the remaining context, making it adequately complete.

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% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the action enum values (create, list, rollback, delete) and specifying scope (VMs and LXC), which maps to the type parameter. This fills the gap left by the undocumented 'action' field in the 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?

The description clearly states the tool manages guest snapshots and explicitly lists the four actions (create, list, rollback, delete), with scope limited to VMs and LXC containers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_backup or proxmox_guest_config, which have different purposes.

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 usage for snapshot management but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as backup or disk operations. It provides context (snapshots for VMs/LXC) but lacks any when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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