editor_save_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes the current scene to disk, which is the key side effect, but it does not explicitly mention that an existing file will be overwritten, whether changes are reversible, or what happens if no scene is open. The Ctrl+S analogy partially covers standard overwrite behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. The Ctrl+S comparison adds clarity without bloat.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it names the action, target, and result. It would benefit from an explicit note about overwriting or failure behavior, but given the low complexity and the Ctrl+S analogy, the remaining gaps are minor.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description cannot add parameter meanings. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and no parameter documentation is needed here.

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 (Saves), resource (the scene currently open in the Godot editor), and destination (to disk). The Ctrl+S analogy makes behavior instantly recognizable and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like editor_open_scene or editor_run_scene.

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 when to use it: to persist the currently open scene, analogous to Ctrl+S. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, but with no save-like siblings in the tool list the intended usage is reasonably clear.

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