manus_website_publish_and_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the polling action and outcome, but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, what triggers failure, or side effects (e.g., destructive actions). The polling mechanics (timeout, interval) are only in schema, not described.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it omits important details that could be included without harming conciseness, so it is not maximally informative.

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 tool has no output schema, 5 optional parameters, and no annotations. The description fails to explain the return status format, what constitutes a failure, or how to use the parameters (especially the required website_id). The polling behavior is underspecified.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any of the five parameters (task_id, website_id, visibility, timeout_sec, poll_interval_sec). Users get no added semantics beyond the schema's titles.

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 deploys the latest checkpoint and polls until success or failure, returning status with URLs. This distinguishes it from siblings like manus_website_publish (which likely just initiates) and manus_website_status (which only checks status).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., manus_website_publish for fire-and-forget, or manus_website_status for checking after). The description implies the use case but does not specify when not to use it or when to choose another tool.

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