save_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: omitted file_path falls back to the current hip path, untitled sessions return an error instead of popping a modal dialog, and the return format is JSON or error string. This is solid transparency, though it doesn't mention overwrite behavior or permissions.

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 yet complete, covering purpose, fallback behavior, edge case, and return format in four sentences. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action, all relevant edge cases, and the return value. It is fully adequate for an agent to invoke 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 has 0% coverage, but the description fully explains the only parameter (file_path): when omitted or empty/null, it saves to the current hip path; if the session is untitled, it returns an error. This completely compensates for the missing schema description.

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 action: 'Save the current Houdini scene to file_path.' It specifies the resource (current Houdini scene) and the target (file_path), distinguishing it from siblings like load_scene and new_scene. The additional context about omitted paths and error handling adds specificity.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (saving a scene, including to the current hip path when no path is given). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases, but the context is sufficient given the tool’s name and sibling set.

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