wait_for_multiple_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that a browser prompt appears, that the user must submit annotations and click 'Done', and that the call blocks until then. It omits what happens on timeout or if the user never responds, which is the main residual gap for a blocking tool.

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 sentences with no filler: behavior first, return value second, usage condition last. Slightly more could be trimmed, but every sentence carries information.

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, and the description compensates by stating that it returns an array of all feedback. Parameter defaults are covered by the schema. The only missing piece is failure/timeout behavior for a long-blocking 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 100%, so both parameters (message, timeout_seconds) and their defaults are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Wait for the user to submit multiple feedback items') and describes the user-facing mechanism and return value. It never names the closest sibling wait_for_browser_feedback, so the agent must infer the single-vs-multiple distinction from the word 'multiple' alone.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use this when user wants to report multiple issues at once.' That is enough context to select it over request_annotation or wait_for_browser_feedback in most cases, but it stops short of naming those alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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