flatten_usd

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

The description adds real semantic context about what flattening does to composition arcs, which annotations do not convey. However, annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description never states the key destructive risk: that output_path is written and may overwrite an existing file, nor whether the source stage or current session is left unmodified.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the definition of flattening. The trailing indented block is slightly awkward formatting but contains no wasted language.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. What remains missing for a destructive write tool is the overwrite/validation behavior on output_path and whether the open stage is altered, leaving the agent to guess at side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The input_path default behavior restated in the description ("the open stage when empty") duplicates the schema text verbatim in substance, and output_path receives no additional semantics such as overwrite behavior or directory creation.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Flatten a USD file") and then defines what flattening means by naming the composition arcs resolved (references, payloads, sublayers). An agent can tell this apart from export_prim_as_file or dump_scene by the arc-resolution framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 note "If input_path is omitted, flattens the current stage" gives one concrete usage mode, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over dump_scene, export_prim_as_file, or save_scene, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. requiring a loaded stage).

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