blender.commit_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that undo steps remain on Blender's undo stack (so the commit is not an irreversible destruction of history) and names a specific failure mode. It does not cover permissions, rate/scope limits, or whether other sessions see the change.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the primary effect is front-loaded, followed by the reversibility note and the error condition. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters the only real gaps were behavior and failure modes, both of which are addressed. What remains unstated is how this interacts with the sibling transaction tools (e.g. an implicit open begin_transaction), a minor omission for a simple commit primitive.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No param documentation is missing.

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 and resource ('Close the open transaction and keep the changes'), and the phrase 'keep the changes' implicitly contrasts with rollback_transaction's discard semantics. It stops short of naming the sibling, so an agent must infer the pairing from the sibling list rather than the description.

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 'keep the changes' framing gives clear context for when to call this versus discarding work, and the stated TRANSACTION_NOT_ACTIVE precondition tells the agent an open transaction must exist first. There is no explicit routing to begin_transaction or rollback_transaction for the when-not case, which keeps it below a 5.

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