rollback_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by disclosing critical behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('All changes since the snapshot will be LOST'), the confirmation workflow ('First call without confirm shows a warning'), and the execution requirement ('Must be true to execute'). This goes beyond basic function to explain safety and procedural aspects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical warning, then parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (destructive operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers purpose, warnings, parameter semantics, and usage guidelines, leaving output details to the schema. This provides all needed context for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 fully. It does so by explaining all three parameters: 'vmid' (numeric ID of VM/container), 'name' (snapshot to rollback to), and 'confirm' (must be true to execute, with warning behavior). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying purpose and usage for each parameter.

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 specific action ('Rollback a VM or container to a previous snapshot') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_snapshot', 'delete_snapshot', and 'restore_backup' by focusing on reverting to an existing snapshot rather than creating, deleting, or restoring from a backup.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: the 'confirm' parameter must be true to execute, with a warning on first call without it. This clearly indicates when to use it (for rollback operations with confirmation) versus alternatives like 'create_snapshot' or 'restore_backup' for other snapshot-related tasks.

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