commit_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral effect: changes are kept and the backup is discarded. However, it does not mention whether the transaction must be active, what happens if the txn_id is invalid, or whether this is destructive to the backup. The phrase 'discards the backup' hints at destructiveness, but the description could be more explicit about the irreversible nature.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and its effect. Every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the action and the key effect. However, it lacks context about the transaction lifecycle: how to obtain txn_id, whether the transaction must be active, and what happens to the backup after commit. Given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more context would be helpful.

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 must compensate. The description does not explain the txn_id parameter beyond its name and type in the schema. It does not state where to find the txn_id (e.g., from begin_transaction) or what format it should be. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the 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 a specific verb ('Commit') and resource ('a transaction'), and clarifies the effect: 'keeps all changes and discards the backup.' This distinguishes it from rollback_transaction, which would revert changes. It could be slightly more explicit about the transaction lifecycle, but the core purpose is clear.

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 usage: commit when you want to keep changes and discard the backup. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs rollback_transaction, but the contrast is strongly implied by 'keeps all changes and discards the backup.' No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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