Coda Get Mutation Status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 202/requestId contract that ties this tool to a prior write, the three possible outcome states, and the polling cadence with a hard 30-second ceiling. This is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the trigger, the return shape, and the polling recipe. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be exhaustively described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still adds the async workflow contract (202 -> requestId -> poll) and timeout, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single required parameter is documented in the schema as the requestId from a 202 response. The description restates that origin but adds no format, syntax, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for schema-led parameters applies.

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 ('Check the status of an asynchronous mutation') and immediately explains the trigger context (write operations returning 202 with a requestId). No sibling tool covers async mutation polling, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this tool to poll whether the mutation has completed, is still processing, or failed') plus concrete operational rules: poll every 2 seconds, up to 30 seconds maximum. Neither the conditions nor the cadence are left to inference.

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