pdm_pve_qemu_snapshot_rollback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It explicitly states 'DESTRUCTIVE (discards current state)', discloses the auto safety-snapshot mechanism with fail-closed behavior, and explains the dry-run default. This fully informs the agent of important behavioral traits.

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 concise (two short sentences plus a keyword line) and front-loaded with the mutation nature. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly more organized (e.g., separating behavior and usage).

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 (mutation, no annotations, 5 parameters), the description covers destructive nature, safety snapshots, and dry-run behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., snapshot existence) and does not explain all parameters, leaving minor 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 description coverage is only 20% (only proximo_target has a description). The tool description does not explain the other required parameters (remote, vmid, snapname) or their semantics, leaving the agent to infer from names. The description adds minimal value 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 the tool's purpose: 'roll a VM back to a snapshot on a PDM-registered remote'. It uses a specific verb ('roll back') and identifies the resource ('VM snapshot') and context ('through PDM'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like snapshot_create, snapshot_delete, and the general pve_rollback.

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 provides clear usage context: it is destructive, takes a safety snapshot first, and uses a dry-run default with confirm=True to submit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pve_rollback) or exclude cases, so it lacks complete guidance.

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