set_variant_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'preview or select' and 'validating', but does not explain side effects, whether preview changes state, failure behavior on invalid names, or any permissions or reversibility considerations.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a relevant precondition. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 6 parameters, 3 required, and no annotation coverage. The description omits parameter semantics, usage boundaries, and behavioral effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to call the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by noting that the selection must be an existing variant and that the set must be valid, which partially clarifies 'selection' and 'variant_set'. However, it gives no guidance for prim_path, preview, command_id, or idempotency_key.

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 identifies the specific action: preview or select an existing USD variant. It also adds the validating precondition for the variant set and available names, making the tool's scope distinct from generic USD composition or attribute tools.

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: after validating the variant set and available names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it reference any sibling alternatives for comparison.

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