end_ai_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without side effects, error behavior, or what 'commit' entails (e.g., permanent changes, irreversibility). The single phrase is insufficient for transparency.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action. However, given the tool's role, a slightly longer explanation might be warranted without being verbose.

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 low complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimally complete but lacks context about what constitutes a 'current transaction,' how it relates to begin_ai_action, and what happens after commit. It covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. According to calibration guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4. The description adds context by naming the concept of a 'transaction,' which gives meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 states 'Commit the current transaction,' which clearly indicates the tool finalizes an ongoing transaction. The verb 'commit' and resource 'transaction' are specific, and paired with the sibling 'begin_ai_action,' the purpose is understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings beyond the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of preconditions or required sequence. An agent would not know when 'commit' is appropriate without external context.

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