rollback_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, but it only restates the rollback action. It does not mention that the rollback is irreversible, that an active transaction must exist, or what happens if there is no transaction to roll back.

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 short clause that is immediately understandable and front-loads the core action. There is no redundant text.

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 transaction control tool the description conveys the main action, but it omits behavior around transaction state, such as the requirement of an active transaction, irreversibility, and contrast with commit. Sibling names provide some context, yet no output schema or annotations exist to fill the gap.

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 and the schema covers 100% of them with an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies.

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 a specific verb ('cancela/rollback') and resource ('a transação atual'), making the operation unmistakable. It is semantically distinct from sibling commit_transaction, so an agent can identify it as the undo counterpart without opening schemas.

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 it should be called on an open transaction, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, such as calling it after an error or instead of commit. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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