wait_for_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the call blocks on a human action, that it returns rather than fails after timeoutSeconds, that re-invoking is the intended polling pattern, and that success causes these sandbox tools to be replaced by the account's full toolset.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause carries information (dependency, side effect, timeout semantics, retry guidance). No filler.

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 one-parameter blocking tool with no annotations or output schema, this covers the essential behavior. The only minor gap is what the tool returns on success (a confirmation payload vs. silence) and behavior when connect_account was never invoked.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is documented (default 45, range 1-600), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the timeout actually causes — a return, not a failure — which changes how an agent should interpret the result.

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 human to enter the code from connect_account') and names the sibling it pairs with. An agent can distinguish it from wait_for_request or connect_account 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?

Clear usage context: call it after connect_account once the human has the code, and re-call it on timeout to keep waiting. It does not explicitly disambiguate from the near-identically named sibling wait_for_request, nor state what to do if connect_account was never called, so it falls short of a full 5.

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