sc_checkin

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, preconditions, or what happens on failure. Since check-in is a mutating operation that likely requires prior checkout and may create a new revision, the lack of such context is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this 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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It directly states the action and requirement for a description, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too terse. It lacks critical context such as prerequisites (e.g., files must be checked out first), potential impacts (e.g., locks or conflicts), or failure behavior. Given the sibling tools (sc_checkout, sc_revert), the agent needs guidance on the sequence of operations, which is missing.

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 100%: 'paths' is described as 'File paths to check in' and 'description' as 'Check-in description / commit message'. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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: 'Check in file(s) to source control with a description.' It specifies the verb (check in), the resource (file(s) to source control), and even notes the description requirement. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like sc_checkout or sc_revert, the specific 'check in' phrasing naturally distinguishes it from other source control operations.

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 its use case (committing files) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sc_checkout or sc_mark_for_add. An agent can infer that check-in is for committing changes, but there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be checked out first) or exclusions. The context of sibling names provides some guidance, but the description itself gives no direct advice.

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