transaction_abortCancel the most recent open transaction and discard its changes. Use it to undo the last batch of edits, reverting to the previous saved state.
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?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds a valuable non-obvious implementation trait: the worker commits then undoes because native abortTransaction is unreliable in FreeCAD 1.1 headless. This goes beyond the schema/annotations and sets accurate expectations for the net effect.
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 sentences: the first states the operation, the second provides a necessary implementation caveat. No filler or repetition; information is front-loaded.
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 parameterless tool with annotations already covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could add what happens if no open transaction exists or what the return/error behavior is, but the core behavior and caveat are present.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning; the baseline of 4 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Roll back') and resource ('the most recent open transaction'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling transaction_open and transaction_commit. No ambiguity about what operation is performed.
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 description implies the tool is used when the agent wants to undo the most recent open transaction, but it does not explicitly state when to choose abort over commit or mention prerequisites/exclusions. The implementation note gives extra context but not explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.