save_stage_as

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the dual preview/export behavior, the scratch_root destination restriction, and the important safety guardrail that source overwrite is always rejected. It could go further by explaining exactly what preview mode does or other side effects, but it is notably transparent for a concise description.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and critical safety constraint are front-loaded, and every clause adds information. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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 complete enough to understand the tool's basic purpose and key guardrail, but given 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, it leaves several invocation details implied rather than explicit. The output schema helps with return values, but parameter roles and the preview-vs-export behavior remain under-explained.

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. It partially does by connecting 'preview or export' to the preview flag, 'different local USD file inside scratch_root' to path and scratch_root, and the overwrite guardrail to the overwrite parameter. However, several parameters remain unexplained: command_id, idempotency_key, readback_root_path, and scratch_stage.

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 states a specific action ('Preview or export'), a clear resource ('the current stage'), and a precise destination ('a different local USD file inside scratch_root'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like open_stage 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?

It gives useful context about when the tool applies (saving/copying a stage to a different local file) and an explicit exclusion ('Source overwrite is always rejected'). However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related stage tools such as open_stage or new_stage.

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