hcloud_wait_action

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: this call blocks until a terminal state or timeout, and a timeout is surfaced as a flag rather than an error. It stops short of stating default timeout/interval values or the maximum blocking duration.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler: behavior first, return value second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return shape (final action plus polling_timed_out) alongside the terminal-status semantics. For a three-parameter read-only poller, nothing essential 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 coverage is 67% and the description only echoes the timeout concept already documented on timeout_ms; interval_ms is never mentioned and 'id' is not clarified as an action ID (versus any other resource ID). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the weight.

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 and resource ('Poll an existing Hetzner Cloud action') plus the termination condition and return payload. The polling semantics implicitly separate it from single-fetch siblings like hcloud_get_action, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Existing action' and 'until it reaches terminal status' imply it is used after an action-returning call, but the description never states that directly, nor when to prefer hcloud_get_action instead, nor what to do when polling_timed_out is true. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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