checkin_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details parameters and return types (Document or ToolError) but does not disclose that checkin modifies the document (creates new version), requires permissions, or has side effects like version increment. Minimal but not misleading.

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 starts with a clear sentence but becomes verbose with docstring-style parameter lists. Some parameter descriptions are redundant (e.g., 'Check-in action parameters for the document'). Could be more concise.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and an output schema, the description lacks critical context: it doesn't mention that checkin requires a prior checkout, that it creates a new version, or how it fits with sibling tools. The return description is vague ('Document object with its updated properties').

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 description adds value for the identifier parameter by explaining reservation_id vs document_id priority, which is not in the schema. For other parameters, it merely restates names without additional semantics. The schema already provides detailed nested descriptions, so baseline is 3.

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 'Checks in a document' and lists parameters, making the action and resource explicit. It differentiates from siblings like checkout_document, but does not explicitly distinguish from other document tools such as update_document_properties.

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 provides no guidance on when to use checkin versus alternatives (e.g., checkout or cancel checkout). It omits prerequisites such as the document being checked out, and does not explain typical workflow context.

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