poll_decisionLong-poll (~20s) until the decision leaves pending_review. Returns changes_requested (regenerate + continue_decision), approved, rejected, timeout_exceeded, max_iterations_exceeded, or still pending_review. Includes comment, settings, conversation, iteration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenantId | Yes | ||
| decisionId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the long-poll duration, exact exit conditions (pending_review left), the complete set of return statuses, and the included response fields. This gives a rich operational contract that annotations alone do not provide.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Long-poll (~20s) until...'). Every clause adds value: timeout, exit condition, return values, and response contents. No filler or repetition.
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 2-parameter polling tool, the description covers the essential behavior and output. It lacks guidance on how to interpret each status for next actions and does not clarify the relationship to similar sibling tools, but the core polling workflow is well specified.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description itself does not mention tenantId or decisionId. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or guidance about formats, constraints, or relationships, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Long-poll') and resource ('decision') with a clear state transition ('leaves pending_review'). It also enumerates distinct return values, which distinguishes it from sibling polling tools like await_decision and poll_approval.
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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: to wait for a decision to resolve, with a ~20s timeout. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some sibling differentiation to the reader.
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.
Core actions like hatch, convert, upload, and lookup are generally distinct, but the polling family (poll_approval, poll_decision, poll_pairing) is easy to confuse, and await_decision misleadingly sounds like a wait operation rather than the creation of a review. Descriptions clarify boundaries, but the names alone leave room for misselection.
Most tools use an imperative verb style, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (hatch, convert, deploy, list, lookup, share, upload), some are verb_noun (poll_decision, refresh_session, get_pairing_code), and auth is a bare noun. The names are readable but do not follow one predictable convention.
16 tools sits at the heavy end of the comfortable range, inflated by three polling tools plus pairing/session management that are only tangentially related to the core task of creating and updating roosts. Each tool has a purpose, but the surface feels larger than the core domain requires.
The set covers create, read/list, update via convert/upload/deploy, sharing, and auth, but there is no delete/destroy or teardown tool, and custom domain/state management is only passively visible through lookup. Agents can complete common workflows but will hit dead ends on teardown or lifecycle management.