blender.wait_for_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses early-return-on-change semantics, the 0-60s timeout window, and clarifies that changed=false is a valid answer rather than a failure. It does not state whether the call blocks/side effects or permissions, but for a passive wait this is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then parameters, then return shape — a logical order with no filler sentences. Slightly long for three parameters, with some prose that could be tightened, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the exact return keys (changed, changes, waited, changed_objects) plus their interpretation. Combined with usage guidance and parameter semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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%, so the description must compensate fully and does: it gives timeout's range and default, explains objects as an optional narrowing filter with explicit omit behavior, and explains include_image's purpose. Every one of the 3 parameters gains meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 until the scene changes, or until timeout seconds pass') and immediately differentiates itself from the read-everything siblings ('instead of reading the whole scene again'). An agent can distinguish it from blender.get_scene or blender.render without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the situation to use it ('after a change you are unsure about') and the alternative it replaces ('instead of reading the whole scene again'). It also specifies the include_image condition to avoid a second render call, which is concrete routing guidance.

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