commit_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that changes are saved, transaction closes, and an error returns if no transaction active. The return dictionary is detailed. It could mention changes become permanent, but overall adequate.

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 concise but includes a note and returns section. It is front-loaded and structured logically. Could be slightly shorter, but no wasted sentences.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, error condition, and return structure. It could briefly mention the transaction lifecycle, but not necessary.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Nothing to add beyond schema, and the description correctly requires no parameter explanation.

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 clearly states the tool commits the current transaction, saving changes since begin_transaction. It distinguishes from siblings like rollback_transaction by specifying the action and the condition (error if no active transaction).

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 after begin_transaction and mentions error if no active transaction. It does not explicitly contrast with rollback, but the context of siblings and the description clearly indicate when to commit versus rollback.

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