save

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value by naming exactly what is destroyed — an existing file when overwrite=true. It also hints at atomicity via "consistent snapshot," but does not say where the file is written, whether the write is atomic on failure, or what happens if the name already exists with overwrite=false.

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?

Two short sentences, the core action first and the risky parameter second, with no filler. Slightly tight to the point of under-specification — "consistent snapshot" is a phrase that does little work without a defined scope.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive/open-world profile. What is missing is the context an agent needs to call this correctly in a crowded sibling set: what a snapshot contains, where it is stored, and how it relates to load/export_scene.

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 carries the burden. It fully explains overwrite's effect (replace an existing file) and, by implication, identifies name as the target file, which is more than the bare pattern/default in the schema. However, the required name parameter's format, uniqueness, and relationship to sibling resources are still unstated.

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?

"Save a consistent snapshot" gives a verb plus an object, but "snapshot" is left undefined — of a scene, a file, or the whole workspace is never stated. With siblings like export_scene, export_png, preview and load, the description does not make clear how this differs from exporting or previewing, so the agent must infer the scope.

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 only conditional guidance is "Set overwrite=true to replace an existing file," which is about a parameter rather than about when to pick this tool. Nothing tells the agent when to save versus export_scene, export_png, preview, or load, and no preconditions (existing file, permissions) are given.

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