save_scene

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses silent overwrite, the plain-text confirmation return, an error when the scene file is absent, and a runtime-session precondition with the remedy. That is beyond what any structured field provides.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then the runtime precondition. Dense but essentially every clause carries load; the only slight excess is stacking four separate constraint sentences where a tighter grouping would read faster.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, alternatives, overwrite semantics, return value, and both error conditions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by framing newPath as "save-as" and contrasting it with the default overwrite, which tells the agent why the optional parameter exists rather than just what type it takes.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Re-pack and save a scene") and immediately scopes it, distinguishing save-as from the auto-saving mutations named later (add_node, set_node_properties, delete_nodes). An agent can tell this apart from create_scene and the mutation siblings without opening any schema.

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 when NOT to use it ("Most mutations ... auto-save - only use this for save-as via newPath, or to re-canonicalize a hand-edited .tscn") and names the precondition-clearing tools (stop_project, detach_project). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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