scene_save

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: output is written under a workspace .casc path, and the tool verifies a fresh file and reopens it to confirm persistence — an unusual side effect an agent would not infer from annotations. It still omits what happens when the target already exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the path constraint second; nothing is padded. 'Verify fresh output' is slightly jargon-like and could be phrased more plainly, but it earns its place by disclosing verification behavior.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the destructive/read-only profile, the description covers the core action and the post-save verification. It is still incomplete for a destructive mutation: overwrite semantics, behavior when the path exists, and failure modes are all left unstated.

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 must carry the parameter meaning and largely fails. It adds useful constraints for 'path' (must be a workspace-relative .casc file) but says nothing at all about the 'overwrite' flag, which is the parameter most likely to cause data loss if misunderstood.

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 and resource ('Save the active scene') plus a target constraint ('to a workspace .casc path'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as scene_new or scene_open, but no sibling is a competing save operation, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this should be called before export, whether an active scene must exist first, or how it relates to scene_new/scene_open. The clause about verifying output and reopening is a post-call behavior, not a selection rule.

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