soundmagic_wait

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only; the description adds that it blocks up to 50 seconds and should be repeated for long jobs. It doesn't disclose what happens on timeout or whether it returns a status, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the repeat guidance is a useful addition.

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 simple wait tool, the description covers the main flow, but the absence of an output schema and lack of timeout-result behavior leaves an agent uncertain about what the call returns or what happens when the timeout is reached.

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 never mentions job_id or timeout_seconds by name. 'Wait up to 50 seconds' loosely hints at a timeout but doesn't explain the parameter's role or the default of 30.

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 action ('Wait') and the target condition ('completion, failure or cancellation'), making the tool's purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling soundmagic_status, but the blocking wait behavior is evident.

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?

'Repeat for long jobs' gives clear guidance on how to handle long-running jobs. It doesn't mention alternatives like soundmagic_status or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not specification.

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