Begin an undoable transaction on the active FreeCAD document. Pair with commit to keep changes or abort to roll back, enabling safe multi-step edits.
Begin an undoable transaction on the active document. Pair with transaction_commit (keep the changes) or transaction_abort (roll back). Transactions nest — the most-recent open is committed/aborted first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | Transaction |
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 does well by disclosing undoable semantics, rollback via abort, and LIFO nesting behavior. It does not state what happens if no active document exists, whether the call returns an identifier, or any concurrency/error behavior. These are minor gaps for an otherwise transparent description.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by pairing and nesting details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.
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 transaction lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and nesting semantics adequately. The main missing piece is parameter guidance for the optional label, and error/return behavior is left unspecified, but the core invocation scenario is 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must document the single optional 'label' parameter. It says nothing about what the label is used for, whether it affects commit/abort messages, or any format constraints. The schema default ('Transaction') is the only clue, leaving the description with no added meaning.
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 states a specific verb (Begin) and resource (transaction on the active document), and explicitly distinguishes itself from transaction_commit and transaction_abort by naming them as paired operations. An agent can tell this is the opening step of a transaction lifecycle without opening any 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?
It tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and how it relates to alternatives: pair with transaction_commit to keep changes or transaction_abort to roll back. It also clarifies nesting order, so the agent knows how to sequence multiple transactions. No exclusions are needed because the alternatives are fully enumerated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.