wait_for_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses blocking behavior, the final-state condition, timeout behavior, and the return shape. It even gives a practical heuristic about dubbing duration to guide timeout configuration. Minor gaps remain around what happens exactly on timeout, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the wrapper explanation, the duration heuristic, and the parameter semantics are all useful and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter convenience wrapper, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, timeout guidance, and return content. Since an output schema is present, explaining return values in depth is not required. It could be slightly more explicit about timeout failure behavior or when to fall back to get_job_status, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 add meaning beyond the raw schema, and it does. It explains that job_id comes from submit_dubbing_job and gives timeout_seconds a default (1800) and maximum (7200) that are not present in the schema. The only weakness is that it stops short of describing the timeout result behavior in detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Block until a dubbing job reaches a final state, then return its result.' It also distinguishes itself from get_job_status by calling itself a 'convenience wrapper' for callers that just want the finished video, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling polling tool.

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 explicitly names get_job_status as the underlying tool and frames wait_for_job as the right choice for callers that 'just want the finished video,' giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_job_status (e.g., for incremental polling), but the implied usage is strong and the alternative is named.

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