transaction.commit

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral facts: changes are retained only in the current session, and the blend file is not saved. This adds meaningful side-effect context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important limitation about saving is stated separately. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool.

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 is too thin for a three-required-parameter transaction operation. It does not explain how expected_scene_generation is used, what idempotency_key guarantees, or what happens if the transaction is invalid or already committed. The output schema may cover return values, but the missing parameter semantics and lifecycle guidance leave significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it does not mention transaction_id, idempotency_key, or expected_scene_generation at all. While the names are suggestive, the critical semantics of expected_scene_generation and idempotency protection are left unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('End'), a clear resource ('a transaction'), and states the outcome ('retaining its changes in the current Blender session'). The added clarification that it 'never saves the blend file' distinguishes commit from persistence operations and from transaction.rollback, which discards changes.

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 implies the right context: commit when you want to end a transaction and keep its changes, and not roll back. It does not explicitly contrast with transaction.rollback or mention that a transaction must first be opened via transaction.begin, but the intent is clear enough for basic routing.

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