remove_usd_attribute

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

Annotations already carry destructive/idempotent/readOnly hints, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains that only the current edit target layer is affected so other layers/references still compose, that a relationship of the same name counts as absent, that results are in-memory until save_usd_stage, and that absence is a non-error returning present=false/removed=false. That is exactly the extra context 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core mechanism leads, then idempotency, then error cases, then the persistence note and alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler, and the Returns line is tucked at the end.

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, yet the description inlines the return shape ({prim_path, attr_name, removed, present}) and its meaning. Combined with mutation semantics, persistence requirements, idempotency, and the sibling alternative, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 three parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds operational meaning the schema lacks: stage_name must map to a registered stage or the call errors, and prim_path must exist, converting two parameters into error semantics rather than just types.

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 precise verb+resource ('remove one attribute from a prim on a registered USD stage') and immediately scopes the mechanism ('deleting its scene description in the current edit target layer only'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling it is not (clear_usd_attribute), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 the alternative and the condition that selects it ('To keep the attribute and drop its values use clear_usd_attribute'), states the in-memory-only constraint and the follow-up write (save_usd_stage), and names the failure conditions (unregistered stage, missing prim). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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