Discard the working copy of a checked-out document and cancel its checkout.
Cancel checkout of a document, discarding any working copy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / node_id / titleRemoved value: -"Node Id"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"_WrappedResult"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral consequence—discarding the working copy—which is valuable. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or behavior when the document is not checked out, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutating 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. The action is front-loaded, and the important consequence is included without extra words.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and effect. However, the absence of annotations and any prerequisite context (e.g., document must be checked out first) leaves a small completeness gap.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the single parameter node_id is inferable from the tool name and the phrase 'of a document'. The description does not add explicit parameter-level detail, but the minimal context is enough to guide invocation.
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 verb ('cancel checkout'), a specific resource ('document'), and a concrete effect ('discarding any working copy'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like checkout_document and checkin_document.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include checkout_document and checkin_document, but the description does not mention them or specify the conditions under which cancellation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.