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. 'Save changes' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., locking files), or handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Save changes'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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 (mutation operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, or error conditions. For a write tool in a development environment, more context is needed to ensure safe and 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (projectPath, scenePath, newPath). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between scenePath and newPath for variants. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 changes') and resource ('to a scene file'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_scene' (new creation) and 'export_mesh_library' (different resource type). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential save operations in the sibling set.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene), exclusions, or relationships with siblings like 'create_scene' for new scenes or 'update_project_uids' for other modifications. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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