sigma_materialize_and_wait

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

The description adds the behavioral trait of polling until complete or timeout, which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). However, it doesn't disclose what happens on timeout, whether the job is left running, or if there are side effects beyond the initial trigger. Given the annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, the added value is moderate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and result. There is no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool summary, though brevity may sacrifice completeness in other dimensions.

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 is too minimal for a tool that performs a multi-step operation (trigger + poll). It omits how parameters map to behavior, what constitutes a timeout, and how the tool handles errors or partial results. Even with an output schema present, the description lacks critical usage context, leaving an agent to make assumptions about timeout semantics and job lifecycle.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter descriptions in the tool description, the meaning of element_id, workbook_id, and timeout_seconds is left entirely to inference from their names. The description only mentions 'timeout' vaguely, which could map to timeout_seconds, but it doesn't explain the other parameters or the relationship between them. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's raw property 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 a specific action: 'Trigger materialization and poll until complete or timeout.' It uses a specific verb (trigger) and resource (materialization), and it adds the polling behavior, which distinguishes it from a simple trigger. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sigma_materialize_element or sigma_get_materialization_job, so it misses a point for explicit differentiation.

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 when to use this tool—when you need both to trigger materialization and wait for completion. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as 'instead of calling sigma_materialize_element and sigma_get_materialization_job separately.' The guidance is thus implied rather than stated.

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