Saves the active scene as a new .casc file without overwriting, returns its SHA256, and requires rediscovering the scene identity afterward.
Save the active native scene to a NEW absolute .casc file; never overwrite. Returns file SHA256. Native scene identity can change: rediscover afterwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene_id | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by clarifying that existing files are never overwritten (mutation is to a new path), that the call returns a SHA256 of the written file, and, critically, that the native scene identity can change so the caller must rediscover it — a side effect no annotation encodes.
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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then the non-overwrite guarantee, then the return value and the identity-change warning. No filler.
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 no output schema, the description still names the return value (SHA256) and warns about the post-call state change, which is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a scene-mutating tool. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden: it clarifies that 'destination' is an absolute .casc path and that a new file is created rather than reused. It adds nothing about 'scene_id', whose 32-hex format is only conveyed by the schema pattern, leaving the compensation partial.
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 precise verb ('Save') and resource ('the active native scene') plus the exact output artifact ('a NEW absolute .casc file'), and no sibling tool does anything comparable, so it is trivially distinguishable from the transform/pose/export siblings.
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 description implies usage ('Save the active native scene') and gives an important constraint (never overwrite, new file only), but never states when to reach for this tool versus, say, export_fbx or get_scene_info, nor any prerequisite for producing a valid scene_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.