start_editing_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the transaction timeout, the refusal condition for overlapping transactions, and the effect of eliminating disk writes. It could mention any authentication or permission requirements, but overall it is transparent about behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return value, benefit, timeout, refusal condition. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity, lack of output schema, and the presence of only one parameter, the description is complete. It explains return values, timeout, and refusal condition. No gaps.

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 only parameter (path) has full schema description coverage. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool opens a report and starts an editing transaction, specifying the return value and the benefit of eliminating per-edit parse+serialize round-trips. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like commit and cancel.

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 explains when to use the tool (for editing without touching disk between calls) and when not to (refuses if an active transaction exists). It also instructs to call commit or cancel to finalize the transaction.

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