vm_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Restore' implies discarding current VM state, but the description never states that the current state is lost, whether the VM must be stopped first, whether permissions are required, or how long the operation takes — the '(revert experiments safely)' phrase gestures at destructiveness without disclosing it.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the clarifying parenthetical follows. It is efficiently sized, though the parenthetical is doing more atmospheric than informational work.

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 values need no explanation, but for a state-mutating VM operation with no annotations and fully undocumented parameters the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether a snapshot must pre-exist, whether the VM is left running afterward, or how to identify the correct VM.

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?

Both parameters (name, tag) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for either — it never explains what 'name' identifies or what the 'tag' selects. With two undocumented required parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb (restore) and resource (running VM to a previously saved snapshot), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like vm_snapshot or vm_status. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the snapshot-creation tool or clarify the restore-vs-snapshot relationship.

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 parenthetical '(revert experiments safely)' implies the intended context — undoing experimental changes — but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisite that a snapshot must already exist, and no pointer to vm_snapshot as the counterpart operation.

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