Save the current Blender project to a specified path or as a copy, preserving the original file.
Save the current .blend file.
Args: filepath: Save path. If empty, saves to current location. copy: If True, save as copy (don't overwrite original).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| copy | No | ||
| filepath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the overwrite implication through 'copy: If True, save as copy (don't overwrite original)', which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that copy=False may overwrite the original file, nor mention what happens to the current file path when a new filepath is provided.
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 extremely concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the Args block adds only necessary parameter semantics. Every word earns its place with no fluff.
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?
For a simple save tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the operation, the save path behavior, and the non-overwrite option. Minor gaps remain around explicit overwrite behavior and return value, but they do not substantially hinder correct usage.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds real meaning beyond the bare schema: it explains that filepath defaults to the current location when empty and that copy=True prevents overwriting the original. This covers both parameters effectively.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Save the current .blend file.' It is unambiguous about what the tool operates on. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like export_file or open_blend_file, though the meaning is still clear.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_file, import_file, or merge_blend_file. The description only explains parameter behavior, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and current state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.