save_usd_stage

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing that a clean-layer save is a no-op returning false rather than an error, and by enumerating the exact return shape. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the structured fields provide.

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?

The most important fact (what it saves and the force semantics) is front-loaded in the first two sentences. The returns block is verbose but justified here because no output schema exists, so it is not wasted space.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields inline plus the no-op/error distinction and the force rationale. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds real semantic depth on 'force' by explaining the clean-layer no-op and its typical motivation, going beyond the terse schema text.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Save a USD stage's root layer to disk,' and identifies the underlying operation (UE::FSdfLayer::Save). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like close_usd_stage or open_usd_stage without opening the 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?

It clearly explains the default behavior (force=false no-op on a clean layer) and the narrow condition for when force=true is warranted (a downstream tool requiring a specific mtime). It gives clear usage context but doesn't explicitly route against alternative save tools such as save_asset or save_level.

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