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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it well: it discloses blocking long-poll semantics, that the wait ends on post/resolve/delete by anyone (human or agent), and that a `timedOut` reply means re-invoke with the same cursor. It omits auth/permission context, though the token parameter in the schema partly covers that.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior (wait, don't poll) and the return trigger, then the timeout handling. The closing "This is how you hold a conversation about a design" is motivational rather than operational, but it is brief and clarifies intent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, and the description still flags the `timedOut` reply specifically. Combined with the timeout and cursor-retry rules, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only auth/permission behavior is left implicit.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents `token`, `waitSeconds` and `afterSequence`. The description still adds genuine meaning: `afterSequence` as a cursor to move past, and the retry contract of resending the same cursor after `timedOut`, which the schema's one-line description does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — wait for the discussion to move past `afterSequence` and return it — and immediately contrasts it with polling, which is the natural sibling behavior. An agent can distinguish this from ui_builder_list_comments without opening either schema.

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?

Describes the exact workflow it belongs to ("post, wait, read, act") and the timeout follow-up ("calling again with the same cursor"), which is a clear usage rule. It does not name the sibling tools (`ui_builder_post_comment`, `ui_builder_list_comments`) by name, so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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