Finalizes the innermost active CAD transaction, applying pending drawing edits and releasing the transaction. Use it after making geometry or layer changes to save those changes.
Commit the innermost active transaction.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies a state-changing commit and scopes it to the innermost transaction, but omits whether the operation is irreversible, what happens to outer transactions, error behavior when no transaction is active, and permission requirements.
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 no filler. It delivers the essential action and scope immediately.
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 simple zero-parameter transaction control tool, the description states the action and nested scope. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around transaction state requirements and side effects that an agent might need before calling.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
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 ('Commit') and resource ('innermost active transaction'), making clear it finalizes the current transaction. This distinguishes it from sibling transaction controls like begin_transaction and rollback_transaction without ambiguity.
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 guidance on when to use this versus rollback_transaction or push_undo_checkpoint, nor any prerequisite about needing an active transaction. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.