Queries Commit Transaction

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), lowering the burden. The description adds nothing about the effect of committing — that it ends the transaction, persists changes, releases locks, or errors when no transaction is open — so it contributes little beyond the annotations.

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 zero filler; the action and its scope are stated immediately and nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a transaction-terminating tool the description omits relevant context such as error behavior when no transaction is active and confirmation that the transaction is closed — a minor but real gap.

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?

Parameter count is 0 with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to clarify, and it correctly implies the only implicit input is the session's active transaction.

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 (Commit) and resource (the current active transaction on the session), which is a clear, distinct operation from sibling tools like queries_begin_transaction and queries_rollback_transaction. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings, but the semantics are self-differentiating.

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 only implied by the phrase 'current active transaction' — the agent can infer a transaction must already be open, but the description never states when to commit versus roll back, or what to do if no transaction is active. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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