snap_revert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the multi-step side-effect sequence: detach kd, revert, start, reattach kd, reopen terminals. However, it omits the destructive nature of reverting the VM state and the conditional behavior when start, reattach_kd, or reopen_term are set to false.

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 a single compact sentence with a colon-separated workflow. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the workflow summary is helpful but incomplete. It lacks guidance on failure/timeout behavior, what the return signals are, and how setting optional flags like start=false changes the workflow.

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 input schema already explains each parameter. The description adds procedural context that loosely maps to parameters like reattach_kd and reopen_term, but it does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Revert to a snapshot') and enumerates the concrete steps involved. This distinguishes it from snapshot-related siblings such as snap_take and snap_delete.

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 purpose 'Revert to a snapshot' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like snap_delete or snap_list. The step list is procedural rather than decision-guiding.

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