pve_rollback

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

Discloses mutation/destructive nature, discarding all changes, dry-run safety, async execution, and return of task UPID. No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden.

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?

Four concise sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds critical information: purpose, safety mode, async nature, and alternative tool. Front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive, async, requires snapshot existence), the description covers all essential aspects: operation, blast radius, execution condition, return value, and related tool. Output schema exists, so return values are adequately addressed.

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 context for the confirm parameter (dry-run vs execution) but does not elaborate on other parameters (vmid, snapname, node, kind, proximo_target). This adds marginal 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 verb 'roll a guest back to a snapshot' and the resource (guest/snapshot), explicitly noting it discards changes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_snapshot_create by advising to create a restore point first.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: dry-run by default to see blast radius, confirm=True to execute; async nature with polling via pve_task_status; and a clear alternative for creating snapshots (pve_snapshot_create).

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