alm_checkin_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions mutation ('check in') and provides return format, but does not disclose details like requiring prior checkout, versioning behavior, or side effects.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences plus structured Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no superfluous information.

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 simple nature (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, argument, and return value. However, it could elaborate on the meaning of 'vc_status' and any required preconditions.

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% since the schema only provides a title and type. The description adds meaning by specifying 'ALM ID of the test case', which clarifies the parameter's purpose 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?

The description clearly states the action ('check in'), the resource ('test case'), and the context ('after editing to save a new version'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like alm_checkout_test and alm_update_test_case.

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 after editing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like alm_checkout_test or alm_update_test_case. Lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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