pve_rollback_snapshot

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful behavior note (start_after powers the system on after rollback), but it never discloses the central consequence of a rollback — that all changes since the snapshot are discarded — nor permissions, running-state handling, or reversibility.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact per-argument list; nothing is padded. The 'Args:' block is functional but slightly redundant with the schema's structured parameter list.

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 state-reverting mutation with zero annotation coverage, the definition omits the information an agent most needs before invoking it: what is destroyed, whether the snapshot survives, and whether the guest is stopped as a side effect. The presence of an output schema excuses return-value explanation but not the missing operational warnings.

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, and it does: all four parameters get meaning beyond their bare titles, notably 'start_after: If True, automatically powers the system on after rollback completes' and 'snapname: Name of the snapshot to restore.' Only 'node: Optional node name' is thin, and it at least flags optionality.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Revert a VM or LXC container to a previous snapshot state.' That is clearly distinct from the create/delete/list snapshot siblings by verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to roll back versus cloning, restoring a backup, or recreating the guest, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the guest must be stopped or whether a snapshot of the current state should be taken first.

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