Check / complete a pending publish or restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool polls an async operation, then completes it by publishing, verifying live, and syncing local state. It also notes the expected duration and the need for repeated calls, which helps the agent understand the polling behavior. However, it does not mention error handling or what happens if the import fails.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then elaborates on the completion behavior and provides usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description covers essential contextual information: what operation it completes, how long it takes, and the success statuses. It also implies the need for entity context. It does not cover failure modes or what happens if the import never completes, leaving a minor gap.

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%, with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including the experimental note for APPLICATION and the environment variable fallback. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Poll the async solution import started by ribbon_publish or ribbon_restore_backup' and 'completes the operation: publishes the ribbon, verifies it live, and syncs local state.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ribbon_publish and ribbon_restore_backup, which initiate operations, and ribbon_status, which only checks status without completing.

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 usage context by referencing the initiating tools ('started by ribbon_publish or ribbon_restore_backup') and provides explicit directive to 'Call repeatedly (imports typically take 1-3 minutes) until status is 'published'/'restored'.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it.

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