io_export_usd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only lists parameters without explaining side effects, permissions, or whether the export is destructive. The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits.

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: one for purpose and one block listing parameters. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose, and efficient.

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 simple export tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics: output format, file path, and toggles for selection, materials, and animation. It could mention that it exports the current scene by default or any output behavior details, but it is mostly complete.

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%, meaning the parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The description adds one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'filepath: Output .usd/.usdc path', 'selected_only: Export only selected'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's empty property titles.

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 tool exports to USD/USDC format (Pixar Universal Scene Description). This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling export tools like io_export_fbx, io_export_gltf, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scene state requirements, or scenarios where this export is preferred.

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