lop_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers rich behavioral context: MUTATING, operations in a single undo group, failure destroys semi-finished products, unsupported when adapter unavailable, and response passes through apply_response_cap. These are valuable disclosures beyond what annotations would 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 description is brief, front-loaded with purpose, and uses structured line breaks to separate behavioral notes. Every sentence conveys distinct information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized.

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?

The description is strong on behavior (mutation, undo, failure) but weak on parameter semantics for most inputs and does not explicitly describe return values beyond the response cap mention. For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this leaves notable gaps for an agent 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?

The description only documents import_type accepted values ('reference'/'sublayer'). With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description fails to explain ctx, parent_path, file_path, node_name, and prim_path. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Create Reference or Sublayer LOP' with the specific node type 'add-usd-solaris-tools' and marks it as MUTATING. This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope, clearly distinguishing it from generic node creation tools like create_lop_node or create_node.

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 description implies when to use the tool (creating Reference/Sublayer LOPs) and explicitly states an exclusion ('does not directly modify stage layer stack'). However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond that limitation.

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