sc_checkin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and requirements. It simply states the action without mentioning that the operation is permanent, whether it can be undone, or if any permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool that changes source control state.

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, front-loaded sentence that is directly informative without any filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it an excellent example of conciseness for such a simple tool.

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 is too minimal for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It fails to mention what happens on success (e.g., a status or revision number), whether the action is reversible, or any prerequisites like having checked-out files. Given the simplicity of the tool and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context to be fully complete.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('File paths to check in' and 'Check-in description / commit message'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('check in') and resource ('file(s) to source control'), which is concise and unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like sc_checkout, sc_revert, and sc_diff, so there is no confusion about its role.

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 the tool is used to commit files to source control, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like files needing to be marked for add or already under version control. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, leaving the usage context implicit.

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