export_prim_as_file

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: references are resolved and materials outside the subtree are pulled in, so the output is a flattened, self-contained artifact. It stops short of saying whether output_path is overwritten or whether the destination directory must exist, which matters for a destructive write.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence carries information. Minor waste in restating 'Flattens the source (resolves all references)' and 'Output is self-contained' which overlap.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter export tool the description gives enough on flattening and material inclusion to call it 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 100%, so the schema already explains prim_path and output_path, including the .usd/.usda/.usdc default. The description adds conceptual meaning (the subtree is flattened, external materials are included) but no new per-parameter syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Export a prim subtree as a standalone USD file') and the follow-up sentence clarifies the export semantics (flattened, self-contained). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling flatten_usd, which sounds like it does the flattening step alone.

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 self-contained/standalone framing implies the use case (producing a portable asset), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to flatten_usd or save_scene as the alternative. The agent must infer the boundary from the phrase 'standalone USD file'.

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