Revert to Snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the VM will be in a suspended state after revert and that auto_start can power it back on. However, it does not mention that the operation discards current state changes or any prerequisites (e.g., VM must be stopped). This is partial transparency.

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 sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, the behavioral consequence is stated second, and the auto_start tip is integrated efficiently. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the resulting VM state, and the key parameter behavior. It could be improved by explicitly warning about data loss (discarding changes since the snapshot), but the essentials are present. Considering the schema fully documents parameters, it is fairly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value: it restates the purpose of auto_start ('power it back on') which is already in the schema. It does not elaborate on vm or snapshot_name beyond what the schema provides, so no significant extra meaning is added.

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 states a specific verb 'Revert' targeting a VM to a snapshot, which clearly distinguishes this from sibling snapshot operations (create, list, delete) and general VM controls. It leaves no ambiguity about the action performed.

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 implies usage: you use it to revert a VM to a snapshot. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative operations like vm_snapshot_create or vm_snapshot_delete, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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