transaction.rollback

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that both property deltas and the captured user context are restored, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explain what happens to the transaction lifecycle, whether a rollback can be reversed, or failure behavior in an open-world scene.

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 one concise sentence with no filler and is easy to parse. It could be slightly more informative, but as far as structure and economy of language, it earns its place.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and annotations carry some safety signals, the description leaves out important contextual information: when to roll back, what the three required parameters mean, and how this relates to transaction.begin/commit/context.restore. For a destructive transaction operation, this is not complete enough.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It never explains transaction_id, expected_scene_generation, or idempotency_key, nor how they relate to the restoration process. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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, 'Restore', and names the resource: transaction property deltas and the captured user context. This distinguishes it from transaction.begin and transaction.commit at a basic level, but it doesn't explicitly contrast it with context.restore or transaction.commit, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool as opposed to transaction.commit or context.restore. The phrase 'restore transaction property deltas' implies a rollback operation, but no prerequisites, conditions, or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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