save_scene

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses silent overwrite behavior and error condition when file does not exist. No contradiction with annotations. Adds essential behavioral context for a potentially destructive operation.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage context, warnings. Each sentence earns its place; no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action, then narrowing to specific use cases. Excellent structure.

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 no output schema and only idempotentHint annotation, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavior (silent overwrite, error condition), and parameter context. It lacks explicit return value info, but that is not critical for a save command. Slightly incomplete for full autonomy but very close.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new information about parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, just the usage context for newPath. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Re-pack and save') and resource ('scene'), with explicit distinction from auto-save mutations via 'only use this for save-as via newPath, or to re-canonicalize a hand-edited .tscn'. This differentiates it from sibling mutation tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Most mutations auto-save — only use this for save-as...' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. Also notes silent overwrite and error condition, leaving no ambiguity.

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