geck_transaction_begin

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses the main effect (creating a rollback point) and the safe timing, but does not explain the transaction lifecycle, what state is captured, how the transaction appears in geck_transaction_list, or what side effects occur beyond creating the point.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. The core action and intended timing are transmitted immediately.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description omits how transaction scope is determined and what the default plugin_name implies. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the agent still lacks enough context to reliably pass the correct plugin and label settings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters. It only hints at 'named', which loosely maps to label; game_dir and plugin_name, including the surprising default 'AI_Test_DoNotUse.esp', are not addressed at all.

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 names a specific verb (create), object (named rollback point), and timing (before direct ESP/ESM file edits). This clearly separates it from sibling transaction tools like geck_transaction_list, geck_transaction_rollback, and geck_transaction_verify.

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 states when to call the tool: before direct file edits, which is the core use case. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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