clear_usd_variant_selection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies that the set and its variants survive (only the selection arc is removed), softening the destructive framing, and discloses the 'HasVariantSet guard' precondition. The return shape is also given even though no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the scope and the guard, followed by a compact return signature. No filler, though formatting the guard and Returns block as separate fragments is slightly less fluid.

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?

For an idempotent mutation tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: the non-destructive scope clarification, the precondition guard, and the return shape despite no output schema. An agent has enough to call it 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 100%, so prim_path, stage_name, and variant_set_name are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or the stage cache key, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Clear the active variant selection on a variant set') and immediately clarifies the exact scope ('only the selection arc is removed'), which cleanly separates it from set_usd_variant_selection and add_usd_variant_set in the sibling list.

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?

The parenthetical distinguishes clearing from destroying the set, giving implicit guidance, but it never explicitly names set_usd_variant_selection as the alternative or states when an agent should prefer clearing over re-selecting. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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