checkin_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses return type (Document or ToolError) and the fact that properties are updated, but does not mention required permissions, side effects, or prerequisites like checkout state.

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 structured as a docstring with parameter explanations, which is clear but somewhat verbose. It is appropriately sized for four parameters but redundant in places (e.g., 'Check-in action parameters for the document').

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 tool has four parameters and returns an object. The description covers basic functionality but omits important context like prerequisites (e.g., document must be checked out) and detailed error conditions. Given the complexity, it is adequate but not complete.

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% at the top level, but nested objects have descriptions. The description adds meaning for identifier (prioritization logic) and file_paths (file uploads), but other parameters are merely restated without additional guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Checks in' and the resource 'document in the content repository', which differentiates from sibling tools like checkout_document. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, missing a 5.

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 explains the identifier parameter prioritization but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checkout_document). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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