mute_usd_layer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that mute and unmute are applied together in one call and that pxr:: applies them atomically, plus the partial-failure 'errors' channel. It does not say whether muting persists to disk or is stage-session only.

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, purpose stated first and the return contract after, with no filler. Slightly compressed — the return shape is crammed into the same block — 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?

Complete for a mutation tool: annotations carry the safety profile, params are fully documented in the schema, and the description supplies the return shape even though no output schema exists. A note on persistence and on the non-idempotent hint's implications would close the remaining gap.

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 all three parameters are documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that both lists are supplied in the same call and that identifiers address layers, but adds no syntax or path-format detail beyond the schema.

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: 'Toggle mute state on a set of layers by their identifiers,' which an agent can map directly to mute_usd_layer among the USD sibling tools. The word 'toggle' is slightly loose since the tool actually takes explicit mute/unmute lists rather than flipping current state, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus other layer-manipulation tools (isolate_usd_layer, set_usd_edit_target, list_usd_stage_layers), and no prerequisites such as needing the stage registered or opened. The parenthetical about atomic application is a behavior note, not usage routing.

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