pve_rollback_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'discarding later changes' mostly restates that. The genuine addition is the confirm=true gating requirement, which the schema does not express (confirm defaults to false). It says nothing about what happens to the guest's power state or whether the operation is interruptible.

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 the destructive consequence front-loaded and the precondition second. Nothing is wasted and the ordering matches how an agent should reason about the call.

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?

An output schema exists so return values are covered, but for a 7-parameter destructive mutation with zero schema descriptions, the definition omits the semantics of most parameters and any note on guest state, required permissions, or whether the rollback can be undone.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only mentions confirm. The meanings of wait, timeout, node, and kind — including the qemu/lxc enum — are left entirely undocumented.

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+resource ('roll a guest back to a snapshot') plus the consequence ('discarding later changes'), which separates it from create_snapshot and delete_snapshot. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the destructive framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 'requires confirm=true' line gives a concrete precondition for invocation, but there is no guidance on when to prefer rollback over delete_snapshot plus create_snapshot, nor any exclusion such as running-VM behavior.

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