plc_rollback

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

Annotations supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee — 'Committed revisions are not overwritten' — which explains the scope of what is discarded. It still doesn't say whether a repeat call errors or no-ops (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or whether an open transaction is required beforehand.

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, zero filler, and the safety-relevant constraint ('Committed revisions are not overwritten') is included without padding. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a transaction-lifecycle mutation with zero parameter documentation and no workflow guidance, the description leaves the begin/commit/rollback sequence and the transaction_id source unspecified. It is minimally adequate rather than 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% for the single required parameter transaction_id, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing about its origin or format. It does not say the ID comes from plc_begin_transaction, nor what a valid value looks like. The only implicit help is the phrase 'active transaction,' which loosely ties the ID to a live transaction.

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 and resource: 'Discard an active transaction.' It clearly identifies the transaction being acted upon and pairs with the sibling plc_begin_transaction/plc_commit_changes family. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., committing instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implies usage through 'active transaction' — there is no explicit statement about when to rollback versus commit, what happens if no transaction is active, or whether the transaction_id must come from plc_begin_transaction. The agent must infer the entire workflow from sibling names.

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