wait_for_video_projectPoll a video project until it completes, errors, is canceled, or times out. Returns sanitized download fields. Use exact_download_urls[n] or downloads[n].url exactly as returned; do not shorten it, remove query parameters, or append expiration metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No | ||
| max_inline_downloads | No | ||
| poll_interval_seconds | No | ||
| include_inline_downloads | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / contextRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds meaningful context by disclosing polling behavior, terminal conditions (completes, errors, canceled, times out), and a URL-handling warning. It does not cover rate limits, auth needs, or timeout-side behavior, but it goes well beyond the structured safety hints.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The terminal-state behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers a necessary operational warning about URL handling.
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 five parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the polling purpose and return-field handling, but omits any explanation of what each parameter controls, which leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool precisely.
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 does not define any of the five parameters (id, timeout_seconds, max_inline_downloads, poll_interval_seconds, include_inline_downloads). It mentions timeout and download fields only as return/behavior concepts, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.
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 and resource: poll a video project until it reaches a terminal state. It distinguishes itself from the sibling wait_for_image_project and wait_for_audio_project by naming the video project target.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as video_projects_retrieve_details or wait_for_audio_project. It describes the polling behavior but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.