undo_check_in

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance (both manual and self check-ins), but does not state side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The word 'remove' implies destruction but is not explicit.

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 concise: two sentences plus an explicitly labeled Args section. Every sentence provides value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics well. It lacks optional details like idempotency or behavior for non-existent check-ins, but such details are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 does so thoroughly by explaining both parameters: event_id is the session ID, and user_ids is the list of user IDs whose check-ins to remove. This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw types.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove'/'undoes' with a clear resource: check-in records for specific users in a session. It explicitly states this undoes both manual and self check-ins, which differentiates it from related sibling tools like manual_check_in.

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 clearly implies the usage context: when you need to remove check-ins. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool list and the undo semantics make the appropriate use case clear.

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