wait_for_sync

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool registers the bearer with Flighty's websocket session, waits a bounded interval, and invalidates the local account cache if an update arrives. It also warns about unknown rate limits and confirms it does not return the bearer or create subscriptions.

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 short, front-loads the core action, and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, mechanics/side effect, exclusions, and caution. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 wait tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, constraints, and return behavior sufficiently. The only missing comparative routing detail belongs more to usage guidelines than to completeness.

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%, and the single timeout_seconds parameter has no schema description. The description supplies a useful wait range ('1..30 seconds'), but it does not explicitly bind that range to timeout_seconds or explain default/overflow behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Wait once for a websocket requestSync notification.' It also scopes the tool by saying it does not change account data or subscribe/add flights, which separates it from sibling mutation and subscription tools.

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 gives clear usage context ('Wait once') and when-not guidance ('Avoid loops; rate limits are unknown', 'does not subscribe/add any flight'). However it does not explicitly name alternatives such as sync_account or poll_flight or state when one should be chosen instead.

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