transaction_commit

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real context: the commit finalizes the undo group, and the call fails when no transaction is active. It stops short of describing the failure mode (error vs. returned status) or what happens to pending changes on failure.

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?

Three short, labeled segments (purpose, side-effects, disambiguation) with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded in the first clause. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter lifecycle tool with an output schema available, the description covers precondition, side-effect and sibling relationship adequately. The only remaining gap is what the caller observes on refusal or partial commit, which the output schema partly covers.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed beyond the bound document context.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Commit the current backend-tracked transaction or undo scope for the bound document') and immediately names the failure condition. It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings transaction_begin, transaction_rollback, undo and redo.

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 'Disambiguation' line explicitly ties it to transaction_begin ('Completes transaction started by transaction_begin'), and 'refuses when no tracked transaction is active' tells the agent the precondition. It never explicitly says when to prefer transaction_rollback or undo instead, so a small inference gap remains.

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