isolate_usd_layer

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description earns credit by disclosing exactly what the destructive path does: assets, actors and components are regenerated when b_load_usd_stage is true, while false is purely structural. This tells the agent what side effects to expect, going beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, parameters follow, and the return shape is stated last. It is dense but every clause carries information; the descriptive prose is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 a mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the mode-dependent side effects, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is the absence of sibling/exclusion guidance, which is minor here since no close sibling exists. The 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: layer_index is an index into Stage.GetLayerStack(true) where 0 is the root and >0 are sublayers, and b_load_usd_stage defaults to true. This layer-stack semantic is not in the schema and clarifies the integer parameter.

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: 'Enter isolated mode by replacing the actor's displayed stage with a new stage rooted at one of the sublayers.' The wrapping of AUsdStageActor::IsolateLayer makes the operation unambiguous, and no sibling tool (mute_usd_layer, flatten_usd_stage, clear_usd_variant_selection) does the same thing, so the agent can place it correctly.

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?

It explains the two operating modes (b_load_usd_stage true regenerates, false is structural only), which is usage-relevant, but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as mute_usd_layer or why one mode might be preferred. The when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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