Check Out (Snipe-IT)

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

Description states consumable checkout is irreversible, which contradicts the annotation 'destructiveHint: false' (irreversible operations are destructive). Annotations already indicate not read-only and not idempotent, but the contradiction downgrades this dimension.

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 dense but efficient, conveying complex mapping in one paragraph. It front-loads the main action. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points for 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?

Given 9 parameters and complex type-specific rules, the description covers the essential mappings. However, it lacks information about return values or success behavior (no output schema), and some parameter details (note, expectedCheckin format) are left to the schema.

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 67% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains which target types are valid per item type (e.g., 'component → asset') and notes optional seatId for licenses. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions on 3 parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking out items to entities (asset, accessory, consumable, component, license). It provides specific mappings per type (e.g., 'asset → user/asset/location') and distinguishes from the sibling 'checkin' tool (opposite operation).

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?

Description specifies that consumable checkouts are irreversible and requires user confirmation, and notes that write access is needed. It implicitly contrasts with the checkin sibling but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide alternatives.

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