save_project

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description usefully adds that writes are confined to the configured project directory and enumerates what the response contains (path, bytes, revision, hash). It does not disclose overwrite/conflict behavior, backup or undo implications, or how revision mismatches are handled.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the safety boundary, then the return contract. Every sentence adds information and none is wasted.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description should explain at least the overwrite and expectedRevision semantics. Listing the return fields partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the input contract remains largely opaque.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet name, overwrite, requestId, sessionId, and expectedRevision are never explained. The mention of a returned "revision" weakly hints at expectedRevision as optimistic concurrency, but nothing tells the agent what overwrite does or whether sessionId scopes the save.

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 a portable scene JSON with local blob media embedded." The portable-with-embedded-media qualifier distinguishes it from siblings like get_scene_json and export_sequence without naming them explicitly, though no sibling is called out by name.

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 and no alternatives named. An agent must infer that this is the persistence step versus load_project, list_projects, or export_runtime, and nothing says when overwriting is appropriate versus creating a new revision.

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