Check In (Snipe-IT)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral details like permanent seat burning for non-reassignable licenses and the need for write access, going beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Description is efficiently structured with two clear sentences followed by a GOTCHA and notes, though the gotcha section is slightly dense; still front-loaded with purpose and key constraints.

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?

Covers essential behavioral traits, parameter nuances, and constraints for a complex check-in tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, though omits return value information and could elaborate on error conditions.

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?

With 57% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to the id parameter (specifying it's a pivot-row id for accessory/component), clarifies that seatId is required for license, and notes the default quantity for component checkin, compensating for schema gaps.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'check in' and lists the specific resource types (asset, accessory, component, license) while explicitly excluding consumables, effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like snipeit_checkout.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including a GOTCHA for id interpretation, license seatId requirement, permanent seat burning on non-reassignable licenses, and write access prerequisite, aiding correct selection.

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