transaction_rollback

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses the destructive nature of the call and the exact scope of reversal, which is meaningful added context for a mutation tool. It stops short of stating preconditions (what happens if no transaction is active) or whether the rollback itself can be redone, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then side-effects, then disambiguation — a sensible ordering. It loses a little to redundancy, since 'reverts mutations in that scope' and 'Destructive reversal of mutations within active transaction' restate the same fact.

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?

With zero params, an output schema present, and readOnlyHint supplied, the description covers purpose, destructive side effect, and sibling disambiguation — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is precondition handling (behavior when no transaction is active), which would matter for a rollback primitive.

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 and the schema forbids additional properties, so there is no parameter semantics to explain — baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents or omits needed input detail.

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+resource ('Rollback the current backend-tracked transaction') and includes an explicit disambiguation line tying it to transaction_begin, which separates it from transaction_commit, undo, and redo in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation without opening any schema.

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 ('Reverts state back to transaction_begin') gives clear context for selecting this over transaction_commit. However, it never explicitly addresses when to use plain undo/redo instead, which are adjacent siblings that also revert state — that exclusion is left to inference.

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