Restore a Hyper-V VM checkpoint and discard later guest state, requiring exact matching confirm_vm and confirm_snapshot_id values to authorize the rollback.
Restore a checkpoint, discarding later guest state. confirm_vm and confirm_snapshot_id must match exactly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm_name | Yes | ||
| confirm_vm | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | Yes | ||
| confirm_snapshot_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real value by naming what is destroyed ('discarding later guest state') and by disclosing the double-confirmation guardrail. It stops short of saying what state the VM is left in after restore or whether the operation is recoverable.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destructive consequence, then the confirmation constraint. No filler.
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?
Output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs the hazards and the guardrail, which it supplies. Minor gaps remain around prerequisite state and post-restore VM power state for a destructive 4-parameter tool with no documented params.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does for the critical part: confirm_vm and confirm_snapshot_id must match exactly, implying they must equal vm_name and snapshot_id respectively. It leaves vm_name and snapshot_id themselves unelaborated, but those are largely self-evident.
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?
States a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('checkpoint') plus scope ('discarding later guest state'), which cleanly separates it from checkpoint_create/delete/list siblings in the same family. It is clear without needing to open the schema, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools by name.
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 statement of when to use this versus checkpoint_create or checkpoint_delete, and no prerequisites such as 'the checkpoint must already exist' or 'vm_name must be a listed VM'. Usage is only inferable from the destructive verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.