cascadeur_save_scene

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds the key behavioral rule that overwrite=true is required to replace an existing file. It clarifies the controlled destructive condition but does not state what happens when overwrite is false and the file already exists, nor whether the save is atomic or returns an error.

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?

One sentence of 16 words with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the overwrite caveat follows naturally. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 file-saving tool, the description covers the workspace constraint and the overwrite requirement, but it omits path-format details and failure behavior when overwrite=false with an existing file. Without an output schema or param descriptions, this leaves an agent needing to guess important calling conventions.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain the behavioral effect of overwrite=true, which adds real semantics over the bare boolean schema. However, it gives no guidance for the required path parameter, such as whether paths are workspace-relative, whether the .casc extension must be included, or whether intermediate directories are created.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: saving a .casc checkpoint inside the workspace. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like cascadeur_export_fbx and cascadeur_open_scene, which have different file/resource targets. The scope 'inside the workspace' and the .casc format make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides one usage constraint (overwrite=true is required to replace an existing file), but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like export_fbx, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., an active/current scene). It does not mention exclusions or alternative routing.

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