rollback_vm_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a destructive write operation. The description adds the detail that it discards changes, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the VM must be stopped, if the operation is reversible, or any side effects beyond discarding changes.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the purpose and effect. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), but the description does not explain expected output or return values. Given the complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters), the description could be more complete by mentioning preconditions like VM state or confirmation requirements. However, annotations and schema cover many aspects, so it is minimally adequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., node, vmid, snapname are fully described in schema). No additional semantics are provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Roll back a VM to a snapshot') and the effect ('Discards changes made since the snapshot'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete snapshot, and the verb 'roll back' is specific to reverting state.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires PROXMOX_RISK_LEVEL=all.' This is a valuable usage guideline. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deleting the snapshot or reverting via other means, nor does it mention potential preconditions (e.g., VM state).

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