Begin a write transaction for a session and scope label, returning a transaction ID to manage changes.
Transaction plumbing for writes. Open one; get a transaction_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | Label, never a path. | |
| session_id | Yes | Owning session. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.17Input schema / properties / scope / descriptionPrevious value: -"Target scope (e.g. filename, module, etc.)"New value: +"Label, never a path."Input schema / properties / session_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Session UUID owning the transaction"New value: +"Owning session."v0.7.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the write-scoped nature is covered. The description usefully discloses the return (a transaction_id) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about lifetime, scope semantics, or what a transaction is good for.
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 clauses, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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?
It covers the essential call contract (open a transaction, receive an id) for a no-output-schema tool, but omits lifecycle and interaction details with the sibling commit/abort/stage tools and the meaning of scope/session ownership.
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 there are only two required parameters, so the schema carries the load; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already documented.
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 (open) and resource (transaction), and the phrase 'plumbing for writes' clarifies its role relative to the sibling transaction_abort/commit/stage tools. It stops short of naming which sibling to use next, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
'Transaction plumbing for writes' implies the context (wrap write operations) but never states when to use this versus kin_transaction_stage/commit or what prerequisites exist. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.