rollback_snapshot_vm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'Requires confirm=True', disclosing the most critical behavioral traits: the operation is destructive and requires explicit confirmation. It does not detail prerequisites like the VM needing to be stopped, but the core destructive nature is clearly communicated.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded, and the destructive warning is prominently placed. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 straightforward rollback operation with 4 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, the destructive nature, and the confirmation requirement. It lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the snapshot exists), but the core usage is clear enough for an agent to execute correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'confirm' parameter by explaining it is required for execution. However, it does not explain node, vmid, or snapname beyond what the schema names imply. The compensating information is partial, leaving the rest to inference.

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 ('virtual machine state to a snapshot'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rollback_snapshot_container by specifying 'virtual machine', and the verb uniquely identifies the operation among VM 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 when to use this tool: when you need to revert a VM to a snapshot. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., for containers use rollback_snapshot_container). The 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning is a caution rather than usage guidance.

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