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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — it blocks up to ~20s and returns changed=false on timeout instead of erroring. It leaves out whether repeated polling is expected or any rate/retry guidance, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: the action and time bound come first, the return contract second, the workflow guidance last. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden; it does state the timeout result and "the current state" but does not say what that state contains or how afterRevision should be sourced. Combined with 0% parameter coverage, an agent still has gaps before calling 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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters. The description only indirectly gestures at afterRevision ("newer revision") and timeoutMs ("up to 20 seconds"); token and sessionId are never explained, and the 20s figure conflicts in spirit with the 15s default without clarifying that timeoutMs is configurable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: wait for a newer shared revision, with the blocking window quantified. It implicitly separates itself from read_session and edit_session by describing a wait-until-changed behavior, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Use while collaborating with the user, then inspect their changes before the next edit" gives a concrete usage context and a follow-up action. It does not name an alternative (e.g., read_session for immediate state) or say when not to call it.

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