plasticity_wait_for_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: that revision-only advances do NOT terminate the wait, and how the returned diff is paginated and resumed. These are exactly the traits annotations cannot express.

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 tightly-packed sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the caveat about revision-only advances follows immediately, then the follow-up instructions. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return (compact paginated diff) and how to resume it. It still omits what happens on timeout and the role of snapshotId, but for a read-only wait tool the coverage is strong.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It meaningfully clarifies expectedRevision (set it to current.revision on the next page) and implies the bodyOffset/bodyLimit pagination pair via nextOffset, but says nothing about snapshotId or timeoutMs — key parameters for a timeout-bounded wait tool.

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 reportable scene edit') plus the outcome ('return a compact paginated diff'), and distinguishes reportable edits from 'revision-only advances'. An agent can tell this is a blocking/await tool rather than a polling list tool like plasticity_changes_since.

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?

Gives explicit follow-up mechanics (continue with bodyPagination.nextOffset and expectedRevision=current.revision) and routes the agent to plasticity_body_info when detailed topology is needed. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a direct contrast against the similar plasticity_changes_since sibling.

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