Rollback firecracker snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes much further than structured fields: it names exactly what is destroyed ('disk state after the snapshot is lost'), the required auth/scopes, and the snapshot billing/expiry behavior. That is material context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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 destructive warning is correctly front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the auth requirement is tucked at the end appropriately. The mid-section billing/expiry sentence is tangentially about snapshot deletion rather than rollback and contains a garbled phrase ('to stop keep billing early'), which costs a point.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers impact, prerequisites and auth, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It is silent on what state the service lands in after rollback completes (e.g., whether a restart or restore event must be awaited), which is the only remaining gap.

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 100% for both required params, so orderNo and snapshot_id are fully documented by the schema itself. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond 'temporary snapshot', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Roll ... back') and a precisely scoped resource ('a Firecracker VPS ... temporary snapshot'), which distinguishes it from the sibling rollback_snapshot and from list/create/delete_firecracker_snapshot without needing either schema.

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?

Gives firm preconditions (confirm with the user, requires services:manage and a full-access API key) that tell an agent when it is permitted to call. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the plain rollback_snapshot sibling, so the routing guidance is condition-based rather than alternative-based.

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