pve_rollback_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals the confirmation requirement, which is useful, but it does not state that rolling back overwrites the current state, discards changes since the snapshot, or is irreversible. 'Rollback' implies mutation but the description stops short of explicit disclosure.

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 only two sentences and contains no filler or redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the confirmation requirement is stated immediately after. It is appropriately terse, though more behavioral detail could have been included without harming conciseness.

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?

This is a destructive rollback operation with five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It omits parameter semantics, what happens to the current state, and any prerequisites beyond confirm=true. The output schema covers return values, but the description is not complete enough for safe and correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It only adds meaning to 'confirm' by saying it must be true; node, vmid, snapname, and vm_type are left to their names and schemas. No additional semantics are given for how these parameters interact with the rollback operation.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Rollback', and a clear resource, 'a snapshot', which unambiguously states the operation. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like pve_create_snapshot and pve_delete_snapshot because 'rollback' implies restoring rather than creating or removing.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires confirm=true', which is a necessary invocation condition rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It never mentions the destructive or irreversible nature of rollback, nor does it compare with related snapshot tools.

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