apple_wait_for_build_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool waits for completion or failure and returns the imported build relationship on success, but it omits what happens on timeout, how polling works, and what is returned or raised on failure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The terminal condition and success return are stated efficiently.

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 wait/polling tool with timeout and poll-interval parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. Critical details such as timeout behavior, failure behavior, and polling semantics are 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 low at 33%: only buildUploadId has a description. The description adds no meaning for buildUploadId, timeoutSeconds, or pollIntervalSeconds, so it does not compensate for the undocumented timeout and polling parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: wait for a Build Uploads API operation to reach a terminal state. It also states the successful outcome, returning the imported build relationship. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling apple_get_build_upload.

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 wait-until-complete wording implies this should be used after a build upload operation has been started, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use it instead of apple_get_build_upload or after apple_upload_build. There are no when-not-use conditions.

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