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

The description discloses key behaviors: it long-polls up to `timeoutSeconds` (default 25, max 25), is snapshot-only when timeoutSeconds is 0, and terminates into `spaces_state`. The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds useful operational details (polling behavior, timeout specifics) without contradicting annotations.

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 extremely concise, using domain-specific shorthand and code-like references. Every word adds value: it explains the wait mechanism, timeout behavior, snapshot mode, and terminal state. Front-loaded and efficient with zero unnecessary prose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a polling wait operation) and the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is appropriately complete. It covers the polling behavior, timeout, snapshot condition, and endpoint state. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the clarification that it ends at `spaces_state`.

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 description explicitly explains the `timeoutSeconds` parameter (default and max), which is valuable given 0% schema coverage. However, the other three parameters (runId, threadId, operationId) are not described at all. With no schema documentation either, the description only partially compensates for the parameter semantics gap.

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 the tool 'waits' for a `spaces_edit` operation, similar to `creations_wait`, and ends at `spaces_state`. It clearly identifies the action (polling/waiting) and the resource (`spaces_edit`), and distinguishes it from other wait tools by referencing the specific flow. It does not fully disclose what `spaces_state` returns, but the core purpose is clear.

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 explains when to use it: after `spaces_edit` is initiated, similar to `creations_wait` from the sibling set. It provides context on timeout defaults and snapshot behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools like `magnific_spaces_run_status` or `magnific_flows_wait`, though the reference to `creations_wait` partially covers this.

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