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 that the tool updates document properties during check-out and may prompt users for download paths, adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling beyond the basic success/failure return statement.

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 values. It's appropriately sized, though the parameter details could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters and returns. However, as a mutation tool with siblings, it lacks completeness in usage guidelines and behavioral details like permissions or side effects, which are crucial for safe operation.

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 adds meaningful semantics for all parameters: 'identifier' clarifies it can be a GUID or path, 'document_properties' and 'checkout_action' explain their purposes, and 'download_folder_path' details optional behavior with user prompting. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 out') and resource ('a document in the content repository'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'checkin_document' or 'cancel_document_checkout' regarding when to use each, which prevents 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'checkin_document' or 'cancel_document_checkout'. It mentions user prompting for download paths but lacks explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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