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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a write operation ('Checks in a document') and describes the return values (Document object or ToolError), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions beyond failure, or system-specific behaviors like versioning implications, 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 with a clear opening sentence followed by parameter explanations and return details. It avoids redundancy and stays focused, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., by merging some details). Overall, it's efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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 complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well and outlines success/failure outcomes, but lacks context on when to use it, behavioral nuances, or integration with sibling tools, which are important for a check-in operation in a document management system.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters: 'identifier' clarifies it can be a reservation_id or document_id with prioritization, 'checkin_action' and 'document_properties' describe their purposes, and 'file_paths' notes it's optional for content upload. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though some nuances (e.g., default behaviors) are still implicit.

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 action ('Checks in a document') and resource ('in the content repository'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'checkout_document' or 'update_document_properties', which would require more specific context about what 'checking in' entails versus those alternatives.

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 this tool versus alternatives like 'checkout_document', 'create_document', or 'update_document_properties'. It mentions parameters but doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., whether the document must be checked out first) or typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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