Queries Rollback Transaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description usefully adds the confirmation prerequisite (context the annotations do not carry), but says nothing about irreversibility or error behavior when no transaction is open.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite.

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 need no explanation, and the annotations cover the mutation risk. However, for a destructive transaction-control tool with an undocumented 'confirm' parameter, the description is thinner than it should be.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does nothing to explain 'confirm'. The sentence 'Requires confirmation' gestures at that parameter's purpose but never names it, states its boolean/default-false nature, or clarifies that confirm=true is what actually authorizes the rollback.

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 ('the current active transaction on the session'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as queries_commit_transaction, which an agent might confuse it with.

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?

'Requires confirmation' gives a prerequisite for invocation, but the description never states when to use rollback versus commit_transaction or begin_transaction, nor what happens if no transaction is active.

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