end_undo

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

Annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint=true claims the operation is read-only, while the description says it 'commits' a transaction, which is an explicit state-changing action. The description also fails to note what happens if no undo transaction is currently open.

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 bilingual sentence with zero filler and no redundant restating of the tool name. It front-loads the core action and the dependency on begin_undo, making it maximally concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 simple one-parameter pairing tool, the description covers the essential action and its relationship to begin_undo. However, the annotation contradiction and the lack of guidance about error conditions when no transaction is open leave the definition incomplete.

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 single parameter label is fully described in the schema as '事务名称。 | Transaction label.', so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('commit') and a specific resource ('the transaction opened by begin_undo'), making its role unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from begin_undo and cancel_undo by describing the finalization step of an undo 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?

It clearly implies the tool must be used after begin_undo, since it commits the transaction that begin_undo opened. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like cancel_undo or state when not to use this tool.

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