restore_snapshot

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds concrete behavioral context by stating that the VM's current disk state will be overwritten by the snapshot state. This goes beyond the bare annotation without contradicting it.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The destructive warning is front-loaded and the endpoint reference adds useful context without bloating the text.

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 destructive restore operation, the description adequately covers the key side effect (disk overwrite), and all required parameters are documented in the schema. It lacks details about response behavior or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the annotations and complete schema.

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 schema already explains id, name, and confirm. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'Восстановить ВМ из снапшота' (restore VM from snapshot). The verb/resource pairing is unique and clearly separates it from sibling snapshot tools like create_snapshot, remove_snapshot, and get_snapshots.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: use this when a VM should be restored to a previous snapshot state. The destructive warning ('ДЕСТРУКТИВНО') gives cautionary context but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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