Commit project transaction

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

Annotations already disclose write behavior (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds key behavioral facts beyond annotations: committing removes rollback eligibility and releases the document transaction lock, which informs the agent of irreversible state changes and lock management.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and condition, then the state effects. No wasted 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?

The description covers the commit action, its preconditions, and its post-conditions (lock release, rollback loss). An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It leaves minor gaps around failure modes and authentication, but is largely complete for a transaction commit tool.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It does not clarify what transactionId should reference or why confirmWrite must be true beyond what the schema's const already enforces, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Finalize/Commit) and resource (transaction), plus the conditions under which it applies (after writes and validation gates succeed). It differentiates from rollback by noting that commit removes rollback eligibility, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like rollback_transaction and validate_transaction.

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?

Explicitly says to use it after writes and validation gates succeed, providing clear context. However, it does not name alternatives (rollback, validate) or state when not to use it, so the guidance is contextual but not exhaustive.

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