Save the current Blender scene as a named restore point tied to the open file, so you can return to that state later. These restore points are scoped to the open file and not visible in other files.
Save the scene as a named restore point. Checkpoints belong to the open file (an id kept in the scene): a new or another file does not see them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | last |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false (a write), destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds non-obvious scope semantics beyond those annotations: checkpoints are bound to the open file and are not visible to a new or different file. It still doesn't disclose overwrite behavior for the default name.
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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence is longer than strictly necessary but carries genuinely useful scoping information rather than 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 one-parameter write tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and persistence scope but omits when to use it relative to rollback and the meaning of the name argument. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% for the single 'name' parameter. The description's word 'named' hints that the argument labels the checkpoint, but it does not explain the default value 'last' or what naming implies (e.g., overwriting an existing checkpoint), so it only partially compensates.
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 and resource: 'Save the scene as a named restore point.' An agent can understand what it produces, but the description never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling (rollback), so differentiation is left 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as rollback or save_blend. The only context is a note about file scoping, which describes behavior rather than when to invoke the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.