pve_snapshot_rollback

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description details behavioral traits: discards all changes irreversibly, stops running guests unless RAM state included, waits up to PVE_MCP_TASK_WAIT seconds, and returns a specific JSON structure. This fully informs the agent of consequences.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded destructive warning, clear sections for applicability, requirements, side effects, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity of a destructive rollback, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, behavior during execution, and return format. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values, making it complete.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that vmid locates the VM/container, node is optional and auto-resolved, and confirm=true is required for destructive action. It does not detail name, but its role is evident from context.

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 tool's purpose: 'Roll a VM or container back to a snapshot.' It specifies the resources (QEMU VMs and LXC containers) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_snapshot_create and pve_snapshot_delete by focusing on the rollback action.

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 description explains requirements (confirm=true, destructive), side effects, and that it is irreversible. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but among siblings there is no other rollback tool, so the guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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