pdm_pve_lxc_snapshot_rollback

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

Fully discloses critical behaviors: labels as DESTRUCTIVE, explains the auto safety-snapshot with fail-closed behavior, describes the dry-run default and confirm action, and mentions return of safety_snapshot name for undo and UPID upon confirmation. This is comprehensive given no annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: 4 sentences covering purpose, alternatives, key behaviors, and execution modes. No redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with safety snapshot and dry-run), the description covers all essential aspects. It explains the fail-closed behavior, undo mechanism via safety_snapshot, and the effect of confirm. With an output schema present, return values like UPID are sufficiently described. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `confirm` parameter semantics (dry-run vs submit) and the role of `snapname` in context. It does not detail all parameters individually, but the schema already covers them. The added behavioral context (safety snapshot) indirectly clarifies some parameter usage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'roll a container back to a snapshot on a PDM-registered remote (through PDM)'. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives for VMs and for non-PDM rollbacks, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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?

Excellent usage guidance: it explicitly states when to use this tool (for LXC containers via PDM) and directs to alternatives for VMs (`pdm_pve_qemu_snapshot_rollback`) and for non-PDM rollbacks (`pve_rollback`). Also clarifies the destructive nature and execution modes (dry-run vs confirm).

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