save_blend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the copy-by-default semantics, the Save-As effect of make_current, path resolution relative to the work folder, automatic .blend extension, and compression. It does not say what happens if the target file already exists (overwrite/prompt), which is the main remaining gap for a write tool.

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?

Four compact sentences, each adding distinct information, with the default behavior front-loaded before the override. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 3-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. The only material omission is the existing-file/overwrite behavior an agent would need before saving over a target.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: path (absolute or relative to work folder, extension auto-added), make_current (Save As semantics), and compress (smaller file). Only the default values of compress=true and make_current=false are left to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Save the scene to a .blend file.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like export_glb (export) and save_spec (spec), and it names the artifact produced.

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?

It explains the default mode ('saves a copy: the open file and its name stay as they were') and when to deviate ('make_current=true ... like Save As'). No alternative tool is named and no explicit exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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