uvcs_checkout_prepare

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

The description adds real behavioral detail beyond the schema: exclusive lock acquisition under lock.conf, refusal of files locked by others, and a short-lived token return. However, it asserts that this tool "takes the exclusive lock so nobody else can check them out or check in changes," which is a server-state mutation while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true; the prepare/confirm framing leaves it unclear whether the lock lands here or at confirm, and that ambiguity is itself undisclosed.

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?

Front-loads the action in the first sentence and keeps each following sentence on a distinct point (lock semantics, refusal, token). The aside about protecting scenes and prefabs is helpful color but slightly expendable.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return value (a short-lived confirmation token) and the locking side effects. Remaining gaps are token lifetime and whether a single conflicting path fails the whole batch — meaningful for a 200-path, multi-file operation.

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 100% and the single `paths` parameter already documents the workspace-relative format with an example. The description adds nothing about batching, the 200-item cap, or how partial lock conflicts across a path list are resolved, so it does not go beyond the 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Check out files before editing them") and describes the lock-rule consequence, which separates it from read-only siblings like uvcs_locks or uvcs_pending_changes. The mention of "Requires prepare/confirm" and a confirmation token signals it is the first phase of a pair, but it never names uvcs_checkout_confirm explicitly as the completion step.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ("before editing them") and a clear failure condition ("Files locked by someone else are refused"), plus the lock.conf context that explains when the lock behavior applies at all. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to do after refusal (e.g. use uvcs_release_checkout_prepare, or ask the lock owner).

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