omnistate_begin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is 'safe' and 'transactional' and introduces a risk tier, which is useful context, but it omits what 'transactional' means operationally — whether state is locked, whether finish/abort is required, what happens on failure, and what side effects occur.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by what the call declares. There is no filler and every sentence adds a distinct piece of information.

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 transaction-starting tool with five parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the lifecycle relationship to 'omnistate_finish'/'omnistate_abort', the difference from 'omnistate_init', or what an agent should expect after calling begin.

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%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description restates 'intent, scope boundaries, and risk tier' without adding format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and an abstract resource ('transactional state change'), plus what it declares (intent, scope, risk tier). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'omnistate_init', leaving ambiguity about which tool actually starts a new state.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'omnistate_init' and 'omnistate_step', the description should say whether this begins a transaction after init, replaces init, or is the correct first call in a workflow.

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