Wait for feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the blocking wait semantics, the immediate-return case, the fact the viewer signals to the user that the agent is listening, and the shape of the returned feedback. Timeout behavior is delegated to the schema, and no auth or failure-mode detail is given.

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 critical behavior (blocking wait, immediate return) is front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The middle sentence enumerating return fields is dense and slightly meandering, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains what is returned, and the workflow loop with resolve_feedback is spelled out. It is nearly complete for a 2-parameter wait tool, with only the undocumented deck_id leaving a small 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 50%: timeout_seconds is documented in the schema, but deck_id has no description anywhere. The prose mentions neither parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and only partially compensates for the undocumented deck_id.

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 names a specific blocking verb (wait), the exact trigger (a change plan sent from the viewer's feedback panel), and what comes back (code changes with slide/step/pinned element plus authoring JSON). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read tools get_feedback and inspect_changes because it describes a long-poll that returns pending feedback.

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?

It gives clear operating context: call it to receive change plans, act on the code rather than the slides, then call resolve_feedback and loop back to this tool to keep reviewing together. It also notes it returns at once if requests are already pending. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. versus get_feedback for a non-blocking poll).

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