coda_get_mutation_status

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds behavioral details: returns a completed boolean and error details, and specifies polling behavior (2-second intervals, 30-second timeout). This goes beyond what annotations provide, making the tool's behavior transparent.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load purpose, then context, then behavior. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 simple polling tool with one parameter, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, how to use it (polling guidance), and what it returns (completed boolean and error details). Annotations and the presence of an output schema supplement the description without missing gaps.

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?

The single parameter request_id is fully described in the input schema: 'The requestId returned by a write operation (202 response)'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal but consistent value by reinforcing the origin of the request_id.

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 clearly states 'Check the status of an asynchronous mutation (write operation)', providing a specific verb+resource combination. It uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings like coda_get_doc or coda_get_row, which are for synchronous reads.

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 explains the context: 'Coda write operations return 202 with a requestId' and directs to 'Use this tool to poll whether the mutation has completed, is still processing, or failed.' It also provides polling parameters: 'Poll every 2 seconds, up to 30 seconds maximum.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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