Save the current Blender scene as a named restore point tied to the open file, so you can return to that state without affecting 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the checkpoint is tied to the open file and invisible to other files, but omits mutation side effects, overwrite behavior for duplicate names, persistence requirements, and whether it is reversible.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the scoping caveat. No boilerplate; every sentence carries information despite slightly awkward grammar in the scoping clause.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and scope but leaves out parameter semantics and restore/rollback context. It is not fully sufficient for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter. The phrase 'named restore point' hints that a name is involved, but it does not explain the parameter's default ('last'), naming rules, or behavior when omitted.
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') and clarifies the object's scope ('belong to the open file'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as rollback or save_blend, so it stops short of a 5.
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; it neither names rollback as the restore counterpart nor says when to checkpoint versus save_blend/save_spec. The file-scoping note is about scope, not invocation choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.