Abort an active transaction and optionally roll back uncommitted changes in scope to cancel an in-progress code-change workflow.
Abort active transaction and optionally roll back uncommitted changes in scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Reason for cancellation. | |
| rollback | No | Whether to revert uncommitted changes in scope via git. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints that this is a mutating lifecycle operation. It does not say whether aborting discards work, whether the abort is reversible, what the resulting status is, or how errors are reported if nothing is active. The one behavioral detail it gives (git rollback of uncommitted changes) largely restates the schema.
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 filler, leading with the verb and the target resource. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps scored elsewhere.
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 tool is low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), so a short description is defensible, but with zero annotations the agent still lacks lifecycle context: resulting state after abort, effect on session, and behavior when no transaction is active.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters ('note' as cancellation reason, 'rollback' as git revert toggle with a false default) are fully documented there. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('abort') against a specific resource ('active transaction') plus the optional rollback side effect. It is clearly distinct from omnistate_begin/step, but the boundary with the sibling omnistate_finish (abort vs. successful completion) is never made explicit.
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 phrase 'active transaction' implies a usage precondition, but the description never says when to abort instead of calling omnistate_finish, nor whether it is safe/no-op when no transaction is open. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.