commit_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Commit' strongly implies an irreversible finalization, but the description does not state whether the operation is destructive, locks resources, requires special permissions, or what side effects occur. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and condition. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a transaction lifecycle (evidenced by siblings like stage_operations, preview_transaction, validate_transaction, rollback_transaction), the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain the relationship to staging, the effects on staged operations, or what the output schema represents. The agent is left without a clear mental model of how commit_transaction fits into the overall workflow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the input schema's bare parameters. The mention of 'source SHA-256' gives some meaning to expected_sha256, but txid is entirely unexplained. The description adds only partial clarity to one parameter and leaves the other undefined, which is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the action: 'Commit a staged transaction' with a verb and resource. It also adds a specific condition 'after verifying the source SHA-256', which distinguishes this from related operations like begin_transaction, preview_transaction, validate_transaction, and rollback_transaction.

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 'after verifying the source SHA-256' implies a prerequisite and suggests a sequencing relative to verification steps, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct guidance on when to prefer commit_transaction over preview_transaction or validate_transaction, though the wording implies it is the finalizing step in a transaction workflow.

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