Core Content Services MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the mutation nature ('cancels'), success/failure outcomes with return types (Document object or ToolError), and parameter prioritization logic. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., what happens to the checked-out document), or error conditions beyond a generic mention, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value, but the return explanation could be slightly more concise (e.g., merging success/unsuccessful cases). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter mutation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral outcomes. However, it could improve by addressing prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or linking more explicitly to sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'identifier' parameter's semantics: it's required, can be either a reservation_id or document_id (both GUIDs), and reservation_id is prioritized. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear and complete.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('cancels') and resource ('document checkout in the content repository'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'checkin_document', which might handle similar checkout-related operations, preventing a perfect score.

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 context through the parameter explanation (reservation_id vs document_id priority) and mentions sibling tools like 'checkout_document' in the list, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'checkin_document' or what scenarios warrant cancellation. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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