transaction_commit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. The description adds value by disclosing the dependency on a transaction handle, which is a key behavioral requirement beyond the annotation fields. It doesn't describe post-commit effects, but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling transaction tools.

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 extremely concise, with only two short clauses. Every word is purposeful: it states the action and the required prerequisite. There is no ambiguity or unnecessary elaboration, making it an excellent example of efficient documentation.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains what the tool does, what input is needed, and where that input comes from. Nothing significant is missing for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema only defines 'tx_handle' as a string with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the handle is the one returned by transaction_begin, giving meaning to the parameter and where to obtain it. This adds clear semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('提交事务' = 'Commit the transaction') and resource ('transaction'). The phrase distinguishes it from sibling tools like transaction_rollback and transaction_begin, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by specifying that a handle from transaction_begin is required ('需提供 transaction_begin 返回的句柄'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the prerequisite and the context of transaction management imply appropriate usage. This is sufficient for a simple commit operation.

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