kin_transaction_commit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description isn't carrying the safety load. It nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: atomic all-or-nothing landing, the daemon reparse + journal step, and the 'fenced commit' retry-safety nuance.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the atomicity guarantee and the retry note. No filler; each clause adds a distinct fact.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers atomicity, idempotent re-send, and journaling, and annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of stating the prerequisite staging step or failure/rollback reporting, leaving a small gap.

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 documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds only the framing that staged mutations are what gets published; it offers no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource — 'Publish every staged mutation atomically' — and the term 'staged' implicitly anchors it to the stage/commit/abort transaction trio, letting an agent separate it from kin_transaction_stage and kin_transaction_begin without opening a 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?

Usage is implied: you commit what has been staged, and 'Re-sending a fenced commit is safe' gives a retry rule. But it never explicitly says when to call this versus kin_transaction_abort, nor states the begin→stage→commit ordering, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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