maya_reference

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that a reference keeps a live link, that replace repoints a node without disturbing its namespace or downstream work, that unload is the reversible counterpart of load, and that destructive removal is excluded for safety reasons.

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?

Four short paragraphs, each front-loaded with its point: the lifecycle summary, the import-file contrast, the version-swap behavior, and the load/unload/removal boundary. No sentence is filler.

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 multi-operation tool with an output schema already covering return values and no annotations to lean on, the description covers the operation set, the safety boundary, and the sibling relationship. 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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% and the description compensates by tying parameters to operations, e.g. reference_node is 'the reference_node the other operations require' and is obtained from operation='list', and file_path serves both create and replace. It does not state required-vs-optional per operation or the namespace default, which the nested schema does supply.

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?

States the verb and resource ('Reference a file into the Maya scene') and enumerates the full lifecycle it manages (create, list, replace, load, unload). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling maya_import_file ('copies content in and breaks that link'), so an agent can pick correctly without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('prefer this tool whenever the content has its own publish and may be re-versioned') plus the when-not case via maya_import_file, and states that outright removal is deliberately not offered here and requires explicit user confirmation elsewhere.

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