vm_rollback_plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds context about the reverse-order execution and skipping of irreversible steps, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose in first line, then usage condition, then skipped steps, then parameter docs. No redundant content.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. However, it does not specify the return value or outcomes after a rollback, which would be helpful for agents expecting a response. Given no output schema, a little more detail could be added.

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 fully explains both parameters: plan_id as 'The plan ID of the failed plan' and target as 'Optional vCenter/ESXi target name from config.' This adds essential meaning.

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: rolling back executed steps of a failed plan in reverse order. It distinguishes from siblings like vm_apply_plan and vm_create_plan by specifying it is for rollback after a failure.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Only call this after vm_apply_plan returns status="failed" and the user confirms they want to rollback.' Also provides context on what is skipped (irreversible steps) with a warning.

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