Save a SketchUp model to an SKP file at an absolute path, using an explicit overwrite flag to prevent accidental replacement of existing files.
Save SKP to an absolute path. Explicit overwrite flag protects existing files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| model_id | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| active_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / properties / active_pathAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 32,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / model_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world, so safety profile is already given. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the explicit overwrite flag gates destruction of existing files, which explains why destructiveHint can remain false. It does not, however, mention permissions, return value, or what happens to the currently open document.
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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the safety-relevant detail. Zero 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?
For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail on side effects, the description is adequate but thin: two of four parameters and the relationship to sibling save/export tools remain unaddressed.
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 parameter meaning. It documents only path (must be absolute) and overwrite (protects existing files); model_id and active_path are completely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 clear verb+resource ('Save SKP') and adds a scope constraint (absolute path). However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling model_export, leaving the save-vs-export distinction to inference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative model_export or model_snapshot for capturing state. The sentence about the overwrite flag implies a safety condition but never says when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.