sylve_vm_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is unsafe to fire blindly. The description adds no per-action nuance: it never says that 'list' is a harmless read while 'rollback' and 'delete' are irreversible, nor that rollback overwrites current VM disk state. That mixed-safety profile is the single most valuable thing a multi-action description could disclose, and it is absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with every word earning its place. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the action set leads.

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?

For a destructive, four-action, seven-parameter tool with no output schema, one sentence is thin. Nothing tells the agent what a successful rollback returns, whether snapshots are per-node (the node parameter's cluster-wide semantics), or what the failure modes are, leaving the schema and annotations to carry nearly all the weight.

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 86%, so the schema already documents vm, node, name, snapshot_id, context and description, and the action enum is self-explanatory. The description contributes nothing beyond restating those actions in prose — no mapping such as 'rollback/delete require snapshot_id' or 'create requires name' to help the agent assemble a valid call.

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 specific verbs (list, create, roll back, delete) against a specific resource (VM ZFS snapshots), which separates it from sylve_zfs_snapshot and sylve_jail_snapshot by target type. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as out of scope, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 four action verbs imply the situations the tool covers, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling snapshot tools the agent must choose between. The agent must infer from the action enum that this is a single multi-purpose entry point rather than four separate tools.

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