scene_save

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

The description adds the key trait annotations do not convey: it overwrites silently with no confirmation prompt, which matters for an agent making an irreversible file change. There is a mild tension with destructiveHint=false, but 'overwrite in place' is the normal save semantic rather than a destructive operation, so this reads as disclosure rather than contradiction.

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, zero filler, and the destructive overwrite warning is front-loaded so it cannot be missed. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering read/write and world scope, the description is nearly complete for a one-parameter tool. Minor gaps: behavior on a never-saved scene and whether a new path creates directories or must already exist.

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 0% and the `path` property has no description, so the description carries the burden — and it does: `path` means 'save as this location,' and its absence means 'save to the current file.' That null/default semantics is exactly what the schema omits.

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 and resource (save the scene) and immediately disambiguates the two modes: current file vs. `path` as save-as. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like `scene_export` or `scene_import_model`, which an agent must infer.

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 path/no-path split implies when each mode applies, so usage is implied rather than spelled out. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., 'use scene_export to write a different format or copy elsewhere') and no note about unsaved scenes.

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