manus_website_publish_and_wait

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

The description discloses polling and return of final status/URLs. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention failure conditions, timeout behavior (though timeout_sec exists in schema), or side effects beyond deployment. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, process, and return. No redundant information; every clause is meaningful.

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 moderate complexity (polling, deployment, multiple parameters) and the absence of parameter descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits explanations of parameter roles, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing website).

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 does not explain any of the five parameters (task_id, visibility, website_id, timeout_sec, poll_interval_sec). It mentions 'latest checkpoint' but does not clarify which parameters affect that default. The description adds no value over parameter names.

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 action (deploy the latest checkpoint), the process (poll until published or fails), and the return value (final status with site URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'manus_website_publish' (initiates deployment without waiting) and 'manus_website_status' (checks current status without deploying).

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 indicates it is used when you want to wait for deployment completion, implied by the polling behavior. It implicitly differentiates from alternatives like asynchronous publish or status check. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for non-blocking workflows) or prerequisites.

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