execute_rollback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary action (reverting) but does not disclose key behaviors such as whether the transaction must be open, what happens to locks or resources, or whether the operation is irreversible. For a destructive action, this is a notable gap.

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 leads with the action verb and the resource. No wasted words, and it is directly to the point.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but lacks important contextual details such as preconditions (transaction must be open), side effects (all changes are lost), and error behavior if the transaction does not exist. It does reference the opening tool, which adds some context, but not enough to be considered complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter. The description adds cross-reference context by implying that transaction_id comes from execute_dml_ddl_dcl_tcl, which helps the agent understand the relationship beyond the schema's generic 'ID de transacción'.

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 uses the specific verb 'Revierte' (reverts) and clearly identifies the resource (a transaction opened by execute_dml_ddl_dcl_tcl). This distinguishes it from siblings like execute_commit and execute_query, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to revert a transaction created by execute_dml_ddl_dcl_tcl. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use execute_commit to keep changes'), but the context is clear enough for an agent to make a basic decision.

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