Save changes to a Godot scene file; optionally specify a new path to create a scene variant, using the project and scene paths.
Save changes to a scene file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newPath | No | Optional: New path to save the scene to (for creating variants) | |
| scenePath | Yes | Path to the scene file (relative to project) | |
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description only restates that it saves changes and adds no detail about overwrite behavior, backups, or how newPath variants affect the original scene.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise, though its brevity leaves important save semantics unstated.
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?
Because the schema fully describes all parameters and annotations disclose the destructive mutation profile, the description is minimally sufficient. It still omits save-specific behavior such as whether scenePath is overwritten when newPath is absent.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents projectPath, scenePath, and newPath. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline for high schema coverage but does not improve on it.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Save changes to a scene file.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish saving from siblings such as create_scene or modify_scene.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_scene or create_scene. The only implied usage is that it is for persisting scene edits, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.