Studio Status

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavior beyond that: the tool is stateless, the url may be provisional, and the caller must gate on media_ready — none of which is derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the output caveat. Every clause carries information the caller needs; nothing is padding.

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?

For a polling tool with an output schema present, the description covers invocation (task_id source, notebook form) and the one non-obvious interpretation rule (provisional url vs media_ready). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It does most of it: notebook accepts a name or ID, and task_id comes from studio_generate. It could say more about format constraints, but both required params are given meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Poll a generation task's status') and pairs it with the input form ('Accepts a notebook name or ID'). An agent can distinguish it from studio_generate, studio_retry, and studio_list without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to pass the task_id from studio_generate and to poll until done, plus the condition for trusting the url. It does not name alternatives such as studio_list or studio_download, but the usage context is clear.

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