Roll back the most recent open transaction to discard uncommitted changes. Use when an operation fails or must be canceled before commit.
Roll back the most recent open transaction. Implementation note:
FreeCAD 1.1 headless abortTransaction is unreliable, so the worker
commits then undoes — net effect is a clean rollback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a meaningful non-obvious trait: the worker commits then undoes because headless abortTransaction is unreliable, yielding a clean rollback net effect. It does not say what happens when no transaction is open or whether an error is raised, leaving one behavioral gap.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact implementation note that is arguably useful for setting expectations about rollback reliability. Slightly more internal detail than strictly required, but no filler.
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 zero-parameter rollback action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and the net behavioral effect. Missing only edge-case behavior (no open transaction, error semantics) to be fully complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.
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 ('Roll back the most recent open transaction') and adds a scope constraint ('most recent open') that implicitly separates it from transaction_commit and transaction_open. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is present but inferred rather than stated.
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 by the verb: call this to discard the current open transaction's changes. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g. no open transaction), nor a pointer to transaction_commit as the alternative, so an 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.