blender_save_file

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the return format (JSON with the saved path) and the fallback to the currently open file when filepath is omitted. The annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict this.

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 compact and well-structured, with the main statement first, followed by Args/Returns sections and two concise examples. Every line serves a purpose and there is no redundant information.

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 operation, the description covers invocation, parameter behavior, return value, and provides examples. The output schema and annotations complement this, so an agent has all necessary information to use the tool correctly.

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 already provides a detailed description for the only parameter (filepath), including the fallback behavior. The tool description largely repeats this and adds example invocation, but does not offer significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: 'Save the current Blender scene to a .blend file.' This is a specific verb (save) with a clear resource (current Blender scene) and target format. It effectively distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'blender_open_file'.

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 tool's usage is obvious from the description and examples, showing both filepath-specified and default behavior. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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