restore_container_snapshot

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention that restoring a snapshot overwrites the container's current state, requires a stopped container, or is a destructive operation. This is a significant omission for a potentially destructive tool.

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 and front-loaded, using a single sentence that is not bloated. However, it is slightly under-specified, though the brevity does not confuse the core 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 is a restore operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the implications of restoring (e.g., data overwrite, prerequisite state of the container), leaving the agent without critical context for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (node, vmid, snapshotname) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it neither helps nor hinders 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 action (restore) and the resource (container snapshot). It is distinct from the VM snapshot restore sibling by explicitly mentioning container, though it does not elaborate on the scope or effect of the restore.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as restore_container_backup or restore_vm_snapshot. The description simply states the action without context or exclusions.

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