clear_usd_references

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description isn't carrying the safety profile alone. It still adds genuinely new context: that the operation is irreversible because USD composition authoring has no undo, and it documents the return payload. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it omits permission/edit-target requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences: the irreversible side effect leads, followed by the return shape. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most consequential fact is front-loaded.

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, so documenting the return shape ({stage_name, prim_path, cleared, errors}) is the right compensation, and the description does that. The gap is the absence of precondition or permission context for a destructive composition-authoring operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both stage_name and prim_path are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning for either. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb and resource: removing all references from a specific prim's reference list, which is more specific than 'clear references' alone. It distinguishes itself implicitly from mutation siblings like add_usd_reference, but never names a sibling or scope boundary (e.g., all references vs. one) 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (stage open, edit target, instanceable prim), and no named alternative such as add_usd_reference or clear_usd_variant_selection. The only usage-adjacent statement is the irreversibility warning, which is a consequence, not a routing rule.

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