blender_save_blend

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context about the risk of losing unwritten work if Blender crashes, plus the implication of overwriting the open file. This goes beyond the annotation and informs the user about real-world consequences. No 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 sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, followed by parameter behavior, then a practical warning. Every sentence earns its place and the message is immediately understandable.

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?

The description covers the primary usage, the parameter options, and a key risk. Given there is no output schema, a note on return value is missing, but the agent can likely infer a status confirmation. For a save operation, this is fairly complete, though it could mention response_format explicitly if expectations are strict.

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% for both parameters, and the description only repeats the path behavior ('Pass a path for Save As, omit it to save in place') which is already in the schema. The response_format parameter is not discussed, but it is fully documented. 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 states a specific verb ('Save'), a resource ('.blend file'), and distinguishes between Save As (with a path) and in-place save (without). This clearly tells the agent what the tool does and sets it apart from sibling tools like blender_open_blend or blender_new_file.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: pass a path for Save As, omit to save in place, and save as you go to avoid losing work. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context is clear and actionable. A slight gap is the lack of comparison to blender_checkpoint, but that is not essential.

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