Revert a virtual machine to a snapshot, overwriting its current disk state. Requires confirmation.
Restore a VM from a snapshot (vm/restore_snapshot). DESTRUCTIVE: the current VM disk state will be overwritten with the snapshot state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Virtual machine ID | |
| name | Yes | Snapshot name | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to run the operation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID виртуальной машины"New value: +"Virtual machine ID"Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Имя снапшота"New value: +"Snapshot name"v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds real value beyond that by naming exactly what is destroyed ('current VM disk state will be overwritten'), which is the key operational consequence for the agent to reason about.
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 tight sentences: the action first, the destructive consequence immediately after. Nothing is wasted and the risk information is front-loaded rather than buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description needn't explain returns, and the annotations cover the safety flags. The destructive effect and confirmation requirement are made clear; only finer details like reversibility or post-restore VM state are omitted.
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 id, name, and confirm are already documented, including the requirement that confirm must be true. The description adds no formatting or semantic detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Restore a VM from a snapshot') plus the underlying API operation, so an agent can distinguish it from create_snapshot, remove_snapshot, and get_snapshots without opening a 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?
The destructive warning implies caution, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or what prerequisites (beyond the confirm flag) must hold. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.