pve_rollback_container_snapshot

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. 'Rollback' implies a destructive or state-changing operation, but the description doesn't clarify if this stops the container, requires specific permissions, affects running processes, or has irreversible consequences. It lacks details on error conditions, execution time, or what happens to current container state.

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 with just three words, front-loading the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but as a standalone measure of brevity and structure, it's optimal.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'rollback' entails behaviorally, what the tool returns, error handling, or safety considerations. Given the complexity of snapshot rollbacks and the lack of structured metadata, more context is needed for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (node, vmid, snapname, start). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters are needed for the rollback operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter roles or interactions.

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 'Rollback container to snapshot' clearly states the action (rollback) and target (container to snapshot), but it's somewhat vague about the scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_rollback_vm_snapshot' which performs a similar operation on VMs rather than containers. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what 'rollback' entails beyond the basic concept.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), when not to use it (e.g., during container operation), or comparison to related tools like 'pve_revert_node_network' or 'pve_rollback_vm_snapshot'. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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