queries_begin_transactionStart an explicit transaction in the active Snowflake session to group SQL statements into a single atomic unit for commit or rollback.
Begin an explicit transaction on the active session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true. The description adds only 'explicit' and 'active session' scope; it does not explain transaction lifecycle, locking, or what happens if a transaction is already active. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is minimal but acceptable context.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the operation and session scope immediately.
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 tool with an output schema and safety/idempotence annotations, the description states the essential session scoping and is sufficient for selection. Transaction lifecycle details, such as needing commit or rollback, are inferable from sibling tool names and the output schema, though they are not restated.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none is needed, and the empty schema is complete.
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 states a specific verb ('Begin'), resource ('transaction'), and scope ('active session'). It distinguishes itself from commit/rollback siblings by the verb 'begin', but does not explicitly name or contrast them, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when an explicit transaction is needed on the active session. There is no guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives to an explicit transaction, leaving the agent to infer the workflow from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.