snowflake_commit_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral effects. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., making changes permanent), error conditions (e.g., failure if no active transaction), or whether it is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and delivers the core purpose concisely.

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?

The description is minimal for a transaction operation. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., an active transaction from snowflake_begin_transaction) nor what happens if no transaction exists. However, given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, it provides a baseline level of completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the absence of parameters is correctly implied by the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 action ('Commit') and the resource ('the current active transaction on the session'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'snowflake_begin_transaction' by focusing on the commit operation, 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 tool's usage is implied but not explicit. It does not mention that it should follow snowflake_begin_transaction or when not to use it (e.g., if no transaction is active). No alternatives are suggested, leaving some inference to the agent.

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