Open a transaction to stage code mutations for a session and scope. Returns a transaction_id; nothing is applied until commit.
Open a transaction to stage mutations onto. Returns a transaction_id; nothing lands until kin_transaction_commit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | Target scope (e.g. filename, module, etc.) | |
| session_id | Yes | Session UUID owning the transaction |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is freed to add the transactional semantics: a transaction_id is returned and mutations are buffered until commit. It does not cover what happens on abort, session expiry, or lock contention, keeping it short of a 5.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the commit dependency. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return value (transaction_id) and the buffering guarantee. It is nearly complete for a 2-param tool, though it omits transaction lifetime/cleanup behavior that an agent would need in edge cases.
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%, with both session_id and scope documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond that, 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+resource ('Open a transaction') and clarifies its role as a staging layer for mutations, which distinguishes it from kin_transaction_stage and kin_transaction_commit. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.
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 sentence 'nothing lands until kin_transaction_commit' implicitly routes to the commit sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no mention that kin_transaction_stage is the follow-up call, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., an active session from kin_session_start). 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.