blender.rollback_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 so well: it discloses the restoration scope, the critical limitation that blender.execute_python edits are untracked (so a mixed transaction only rolls back its tool calls), and the specific error raised when no transaction is open. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then parameter semantics, then restoration scope and caveats, closing with the error case. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the tool name or title.

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 not be explained; the description instead covers the operation's scope, the untracked execute_python edge case, and the failure mode. For a one-parameter transaction mutation tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single `to` parameter, so the description must compensate and does: it defines `to` as an optional checkpoint label, explains the omit-vs-name semantics, and pairs it with the rewind target behavior. Nothing about the parameter is left ambiguous.

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 precise verb ('put back') and the exact resource scope (everything the transaction changed), then enumerates what gets restored: transforms, names, visibility, materials and collection membership. An agent can distinguish this from commit_transaction and begin_transaction without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly specifies the two usage modes of the tool via the `to` parameter (omit to rewind to transaction start, name a checkpoint to rewind to it) and the failure condition TRANSACTION_NOT_ACTIVE. It does not explicitly state when to prefer rollback over commit_transaction or confirm the transaction closes afterwards, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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