commit_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the core commit action but does not disclose that committing is typically irreversible, that it ends the transaction, or what happens if there is no active transaction.

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 the key verb front-loaded. There is no filler, repetition of structured data, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks transaction lifecycle context and edge-case behavior, such as requiring an active transaction or the distinction from rollback_transaction, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema requires no additional parameter explanation. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot meaningfully add parameter semantics where none exist.

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, 'Confirma (commit)', and a clear resource, 'a transação atual', which distinguishes it from siblings like rollback_transaction and begin_transaction. An agent can immediately understand the operation and its scope.

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 phrase 'transação atual' implies there is an active transaction to commit, which gives indirect usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use commit versus rollback, nor that commit should follow a begin_transaction.

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