pve_rollback_vm_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Rollback VM to snapshot' implies a destructive operation that reverts the VM to a previous state, but it fails to specify critical details such as whether the VM must be stopped first, if data loss occurs, permission requirements, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, posing risks for safe invocation.

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 a single phrase, 'Rollback VM to snapshot', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive rollback operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, side effects), usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in a production environment.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (node, vmid, snapname, start). The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 VM to snapshot' clearly states the action (rollback) and target (VM to snapshot), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'rollback' entails (e.g., restoring VM state) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'pve_rollback_container_snapshot', which performs a similar operation on containers instead of VMs. This makes it vague in comparison to more detailed descriptions.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), exclusions (e.g., not usable while VM is running without precautions), or related tools like 'pve_create_vm_snapshot' for creating snapshots first. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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