Rollback Transaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the exact scope of loss (all changes since transaction_begin), the failure mode (`ok: false` when no active transaction), and divergent behavior between COM and ezdxf backends.

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-loads the core action, then separates backend-specific behavior and ends with a prominent warning. It is somewhat verbose with two backend notes, but every sentence adds information for the caller.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive safety profile. The description still supplies backend behavior and a failure mode, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies since there are no parameters to explain.

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 (Rollback) and resource (current transaction), anchoring it to the point of transaction_begin. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling transaction_commit and drawing_undo, and adds backend-specific semantics for COM vs ezdxf.

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?

Provides a clear context: it rolls back to transaction_begin and is refused when no transaction is active, which implies it must follow transaction_begin. It does not explicitly name transaction_commit as the alternative to keep changes, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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