Revert Parallels snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation and destructiveness. The description adds that the revert occurs 'after explicit confirmation', informing the agent that a confirmation step is required. This goes beyond the annotations by hinting at the confirm parameter and the need for explicit user consent, though it does not specify the mechanics.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no extraneous content. It front-loads the action and the key condition (explicit confirmation), making it immediately scannable. It achieves maximum efficiency without losing essential meaning.

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 destructive operation with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits critical operational details such as the requirement to set confirm=true to actually execute, the irreversible nature of reverting (data loss), and any information about the output. While the annotation flags destructiveness, the description fails to provide the practical guidance an agent needs to invoke it safely and 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description only alludes to the confirm parameter via 'explicit confirmation' but does not explain the vm or snapshot parameters, nor does it clarify that confirm must be set to true for the operation to proceed. This leaves agents guessing about parameter usage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Revert' and identifies the resource as 'guest state to a snapshot', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like snapshot_create or snapshot_delete because it explicitly mentions reverting state, not creating or deleting snapshots. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential alternatives like vm_clone, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 usage for restoring a VM to a previously captured state, which is a distinct operation among the snapshot and VM tools. It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The phrase 'after explicit confirmation' hints at a prerequisite but does not elaborate on the condition.

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