set_variant_selection

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive, non-open-world mutation; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that it performs an activation toggle plus frame pumping to force a Hydra rprim refresh so the viewport shows correct geometry. That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure annotations cannot carry. It omits whether the operation can fail or throw, keeping it below 5.

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 action and its viewport consequence are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the workaround note follows as supporting detail. The parenthetical is somewhat implementation-flavored but still earns its place by explaining an observable delay/refresh behavior.

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?

With three fully described required parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema handling return values, the only missing piece an agent needs is the side effect of the variant switch — which is documented. Nothing required for correct invocation is absent.

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% and each parameter is documented with an example in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, path syntax, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 ('Switch variant selection on a prim') and adds the viewport-refresh effect, which is the distinguishing trait versus sibling create_variant_structure. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when to use this tool versus create_variant_structure or create_prim, nor does it state preconditions (e.g., the variant set must already exist). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'on a prim with the variant set'.

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