export_usd

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds the plugin dependency and the exact error code (err.class_missing) if the plugin is absent. This is useful, though it does not mention overwrite behavior or output reporting.

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 short and includes an explicit English section, but it repeats the same information in Chinese and English, which adds token overhead without new content. The placement of Chinese before English also slightly reduces front-loading for English-based agents.

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?

The schema and annotations cover parameters and destructive intent, and the description adds the critical plugin prerequisite. However, it omits any statement about file overwriting, return behavior, or when to prefer this export format over the many sibling export tools, leaving meaningful context gaps.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters completely, including the allowed file extensions and the default value of 'selected'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage 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 clearly states 'Export USD', naming the exact operation and file format. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling export tools like export_fbx or export_gltf, but the tool name and format-specific wording make the intent obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose export_usd over its sibling export tools, nor any mention of alternatives. The only extra context is the plugin prerequisite and failure mode, which is not a usage guideline.

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