rollback_snapshot_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' and clarifies that confirm=True is required, but does not detail the actual consequences, such as losing all changes made after the snapshot, or whether the container must be stopped.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence plus a short warning. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately flags the destructive nature. No unnecessary words or 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?

The tool is destructive, has no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to provide more context. It only mentions the action and the confirm requirement, omitting details about the effect on the container's current state, any prerequisites (e.g., existing snapshot, container stopped), or what the response might look like.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the confirm parameter by stating it must be true, but it does not explain node, vmid, or snapname. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of explicit clarification leaves room for ambiguity.

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 identifies the action as rolling back an LXC container state to a snapshot, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like rollback_snapshot_vm (for VMs) and create/delete/list snapshot tools.

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 the tool is used to revert a container to a snapshot state, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives, such as rollback_snapshot_vm for VMs. It does provide a key guideline by requiring confirm=True, but omits any context about prerequisites or conditions.

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