rollback_container_snapshot

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

The description implies a state-altering operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like destructiveness, irreversibility, or the need to stop the container. Without annotations, the description fails to adequately inform the agent of the tool's impact.

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 very concise with a single sentence and a clean list of arguments. It is not verbose, but the structure is adequate for a simple tool. Slightly more context could be added without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's potentially destructive nature (rollback), the description is incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites, effects on current state, or conditions like container status. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for this lack of context.

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?

The description provides minimal explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'The node name.'), adding some meaning beyond the schema titles. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the explanations are trivial and lack constraints or allowed values.

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 action ('Rollback') and the resource ('container to a previous snapshot'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'rollback_vm_snapshot' (for VMs) and other snapshot operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a container should be stopped or prerequisites like the existence of the snapshot. The description lacks any usage context.

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