open_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does disclose the key destructive behavior: scratch_stage=true gates a destructive stage replacement. It also offers a preview option. Still, it leaves other behavioral aspects unstated, such as what happens to the current stage after a non-destructive open, idempotency, or error behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and immediately follows with the destructive-condition warning. Every clause earns its place.

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 covers the minimum viable call and the critical safety flag, and an output schema exists. However, with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description leaves too much unspecified for non-basic invocations and for choosing among the many stage-related sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains scratch_root, preview, and scratch_stage, but command_id, idempotency_key, and readback_root_path are not explained at all. The compensation is partial and insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the action ('Preview or open'), the resource ('a local USD stage'), and the scope ('inside scratch_root'). It distinguishes the tool from generic USD loading, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like load_usd or new_stage.

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 gives useful usage context: operate on local stages inside scratch_root, and destructive stage replacement requires scratch_stage=true. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like load_usd or new_stage, leaving the route selection to inference.

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