wait_job_finished

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly says the tool waits for completion and returns an asset identifier, but it does not disclose behavior on timeout, job failure, whether it polls, or if it throws errors. This is meaningful but incomplete disclosure for an asynchronous wait operation.

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 sentence that is mostly efficient and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Official Roblox MCP' prefix is boilerplate noise, but it does not significantly harm clarity. It is concise, though slightly less clean than a fully purpose-only phrasing.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose and return value, and the schema fully documents parameters, but it omits important operational context such as timeout behavior, failure handling, and explicit guidance on the generate-then-wait workflow. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more of this burden than it does.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the schema already documents jobId's source and timeoutSeconds' default. The description does not improve or extend parameter understanding.

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: it waits for an asynchronous AI generation job to finish and returns the asset identifier. This clearly distinguishes it from generation tools like generate_mesh/generate_material, though it does not explicitly name a sibling. It stops short of a 5 because it lacks explicit differentiation wording.

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 implies it should be used after an async generation job is started and that the jobId originates from generate_mesh/generate_material, but this is only in the schema property description, not the tool description. No when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the intended workflow.

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