save_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it can save or save-as, requires .max extension for save-as, and explains failure conditions for overwrite saving. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or other system constraints that might be relevant.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the examples more tightly, but overall it's efficiently organized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (file operations with conditional behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining both input parameters and return values. It fully documents the parameter semantics and return structure. The only minor gap is lack of information about error conditions beyond the mentioned failure case.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive semantic information about the file_path parameter: its dual functionality (empty string for overwrite vs. specified path for save-as), format requirements (.max extension), and concrete examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('保存当前 3ds Max 场景文件' - save current 3ds Max scene file) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'new_scene', 'open_scene', 'export_file', and 'import_file'. It explicitly describes saving to a file, differentiating from other scene manipulation tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it explains both overwrite saving (when file_path is empty) and save-as functionality (when file_path is specified). It also mentions the prerequisite that overwrite saving requires the scene to have been previously saved, giving clear usage conditions.

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