save_blend

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes much further by disclosing that the default leaves the open file and its name unchanged, that make_current converts the operation into a Save As, how paths resolve (absolute or relative to the work folder), and that .blend is appended if missing. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default behavior, then the two flags. Every sentence carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema and no rich annotations, the description covers the operation, the default-vs-Save-As distinction, and path handling well. The one unstated risk is overwrite behavior when the target .blend already exists, which matters for a file-writing tool.

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%, so the description must document all three params, and it does: path (absolute or work-folder-relative, extension auto-added), compress (smaller file), and make_current (Save As semantics). Each parameter gains meaning beyond its bare type and default.

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 to a .blend file") and the format qualifier (.blend) implicitly separates it from siblings like export_glb, save_spec, or checkpoint. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly frames the two modes: default is a non-destructive copy, make_current=true is Save As. That is explicit when-to-use guidance for the key flag, though it never names a sibling tool or an exclusion case (e.g., when to prefer export_glb instead).

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