doc_checkout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool acquires an edit lock, returns content/hash/lock_token, and that concurrent callers receive code=locked. It does not disclose TTL expiration, release obligations, or authorization requirements, but the core behavioral traits are clearly communicated.

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 compact: two sentences front-load the core action and return values. The note about another agent receiving code=locked is useful but slightly tangential; overall the text is appropriately concise for the behavior it conveys.

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?

The description covers the main behavior and return contract, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the primary gap. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, important call-time details such as how ttl_seconds or share_token affect checkout behavior are missing, leaving the definition incomplete for a tool with four parameters.

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% and the description provides no parameter-level semantics. The four parameters (doc_id, agent_id, share_token, ttl_seconds) are entirely undocumented in the prose, so an agent has no additional guidance about what these values mean or how to supply them correctly.

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 states a specific action ('Adquire lock de edição') and names the expected return payload (content + hash + lock_token), making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like doc_read/doc_get by emphasizing the lock acquisition, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 that the tool should be used when an edit lock is needed, and the note about another agent receiving code=locked conveys exclusivity. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it suggest alternatives such as doc_read or doc_get for non-locking reads.

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