Scene Save

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say the scene is written to disk, that an existing file may be overwritten, that a prompt may appear, or that session_key targets a specific Maya instance. Everything of that nature lives in the schema fields, not the description.

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 no filler or repetition, which is appropriate for a simple three-parameter tool. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but there is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits any mention of the write/overwrite side effects, leaving a real gap relative to its complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents path, force, and session_key with more detail than the description provides. The description's 'optionally to a new path' merely restates the path parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Save) and resource (the current scene), and the parenthetical clarifies the save-as variant. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like scene_new and scene_open by verb alone, though it never names an alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this versus scene_new/scene_open, no preconditions (e.g. an active session or unsaved changes), and no note about prompting. The parenthetical hints at a save-as case but gives no decision criteria.

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