pve_guest_config_revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behaviors. It clearly labels the tool as a mutation ('MUTATION (UNDO)') and states it is synchronous. It reveals the default dry-run mode and that actual execution requires confirm=True. It does not detail side effects (e.g., overwriting current config) or auth requirements, but the core behavioral traits are transparent enough for safe usage.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the critical information ('MUTATION (UNDO)') and immediately explains the resource and action. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 (6 params, nested objects, output schema), the description is minimal but covers the essential workflow: revert to a prior config. It references the related set operation. However, it does not explain the output schema, the role of other parameters, or failure modes. The completeness is adequate for a simple undo but lacks detail for nuanced scenarios.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It does explicate two key parameters: prior_config (from pve_guest_config_set) and confirm (execution flag). However, other parameters like kind, node, vmid, and proximo_target are left undocumented. The description adds value beyond the schema for the most critical parameters but falls short of full compensation.

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: 'MUTATION (UNDO): re-apply a previously captured guest config'. It specifies the resource (guest config) and action (re-apply), and distinguishes it from siblings like pve_guest_config_set and pve_guest_config_get by framing it as an undo operation. The verb 're-apply' is specific, and the mention of prior_config from pve_guest_config_set ties it to a known workflow.

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 an undo operation for guest config changes made via pve_guest_config_set. It explains default behavior (dry-run) and how to execute (confirm=True). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, though the sibling set includes many unrelated tools. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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