wait_for_authorization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the call blocks, that wait_ms is capped, that an unanswered request returns pending, that the agent should act on status rather than return, and that certain statuses mean the request id is finished. It also notes the human-approval dependency.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then moves from trigger condition, to polling behavior, to status-specific actions. The bullet list makes the status semantics scannable rather than burying them in prose.

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?

This is a complex tool with no annotations, yet the description covers trigger, blocking behavior, timeout handling, retry rules, and every status outcome. The output schema exists and is supplemented by the explicit next_action/should_retry explanation, so nothing critical is left to inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully does. It explains where authorization_request_id comes from (the run_subagent error), and gives detailed semantics for wait_ms: long-polling, capping, and repeated polling on timeout. This goes well beyond the bare 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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Wait for the user's decision on a pending workspace authorization request.' It immediately ties the tool to the run_subagent error condition, so an agent can distinguish this from listing, canceling, or status tools without opening the 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?

The description explicitly states when to call this tool (after run_subagent returns WORKSPACE_NOT_AUTHORIZED with pending=true), why retrying immediately cannot succeed, and when to keep waiting or stop waiting. It also gives action-by-action retry instructions for each status, which is unusually clear operational guidance.

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