transaction_rollback

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which signals a destructive operation; the description does not contradict this. The description adds value by stating the requirement of a valid handle from transaction_begin, which is critical context beyond the annotations. It does not describe side effects like discarding changes, but annotations cover safety. With annotations present, the description provides useful context, justifying a 4.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It conveys the action and the required input. It is slightly terse but efficient, with no unnecessary words. This is close to a 5 but the brevity means it lacks some detail, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core action and the source of the handle. It does not explain side effects or what happens after rollback, but with destructive annotations and sibling tools, it is minimally complete. However, it could mention that it ends the transaction, but it is adequate for the complexity.

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 compensate for the parameter 'tx_handle'. The description mentions the handle from transaction_begin, which adds meaning to the parameter (it's a handle type). However, it does not explain format or constraints, but for a single string parameter, this is minimal. Baseline for low coverage would be lower, but the description does provide some context.

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 '回滚事务' (rollback transaction) which clearly identifies a rollback operation on a transaction. However, it does not specify the resource (the transaction handle) beyond the schema, and while it is distinct from transaction_begin and transaction_commit, it lacks explicit differentiation. The purpose is clear but not elaborated for sibling distinction.

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 implies usage requires a handle from transaction_begin ('需提供 transaction_begin 返回的句柄'), which gives context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. It states the prerequisite but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it's clear but not explicit.

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