undo.commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Commit undo transaction' with no details on whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires specific session state, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for safe agent decision-making.

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 at three words, but it lacks structure or front-loading of critical information. While brevity can be a virtue, here it sacrifices informativeness. A minimally adequate description would at least explain what committing means in context.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and numerous related siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, what state it requires (e.g., after undo.begin), or how it fits into the undo/redo workflow. The context is incomplete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (session_id, transaction_id). It does not explain their roles, formats, or constraints. The description is entirely silent on parameters, leaving the agent with no additional information beyond the schema's property names.

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 'Commit undo transaction' clearly identifies the action (commit) and resource (undo transaction). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like undo.begin, undo.undo, undo.redo, and undo.revert, which also relate to undo transactions. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical usage patterns, or scenarios where this tool should or should not be used. For example, it does not explain that commit should only be called after begin. Score reflects lack of usage context.

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