rollback_snapshot

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

The disclosure that non-latest rollback 'automatically delete[s] all the newer snapshots' is genuinely valuable side-effect information the agent cannot get from the schema. However, it directly conflicts with the annotation destructiveHint=false, which would lead an agent to under-estimate the risk of an irreversible cascade delete.

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-loaded with the operation and endpoint, and the cascade-delete warning is the second sentence where it belongs. Slight redundancy between the first and second sentences ('Revert ... based on its identifier' vs 'Rollback the instance to a specific snapshot') costs a little.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key irreversible side effect but omits what the agent still needs: whether the rollback is synchronous, what instance state results, and what the required empty 'body' should contain. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so instanceId, snapshotId, and x-trace-id are already documented; the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond them. The required 'body' parameter is an empty object whose expected content is unexplained in both schema and description, which the description does not compensate for.

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 ('Revert the instance to a particular snapshot') plus the exact endpoint path, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_snapshot, delete_snapshot, and create_snapshot. 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?

The description implies when to use it (to return an instance to a prior snapshot) and explains a conditional consequence, but gives no explicit exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., whether the instance must be stopped), or pointers to the sibling snapshot tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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