wait_for_pairing

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it states the tool blocks for up to `timeout_ms`, describes success and timeout payloads, explains the `permissions` scopes, and details the incompatible-bridge flow including required user-facing messages. This goes far beyond minimal transparency.

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 long but every sentence adds necessary information about behavior, prerequisites, return values, or error handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and prerequisite, then systematically covers success, timeout, and incompatibility cases. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values, error cases, and side effects. It covers all of these: success payloads, timeout retry semantics, permission-denied behavior, and incompatible-bridge instructions. It is complete enough for an agent to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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?

Although the schema already documents `timeout_ms` at 100% coverage, the description adds valuable context: it explains the default (50 s), the maximum (50 s), the polling behavior, and that it is sized to fit under typical MCP client timeouts. This enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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: "Poll for completion of pairing started by `get_pairing_credentials`." This clearly differentiates it from the sibling `get_pairing_credentials`, which starts the pairing, while this tool waits for completion.

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?

It states an explicit prerequisite (show credentials first), explains when to call again (on timeout), and when to stop (incompatible bridge). It also warns against calling without showing credentials because it 'only burns 50 s of polling while the user sees nothing actionable.'

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